Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of William Watson Small, Esquire, Member for Glasgow, Garscadden, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Scottish Development Agency

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the work of the Scottish Development Agency in creating employment opportunities in Scotland.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): Before I answer, perhaps I may be permitted—as is appropriate on this first Scottish Question time—to say how much all of us on both sides of the House very much regret the passing of Willie Small, who has been our friend and colleague for many years. His considerable industrial experience in the West of Scotland has been of great value to Scottish Ministers. The commonsense advice that he gave us both publicly and privately will be sorely missed. He was a man of great sincerity and integrity and he had a very finely tuned sense of humour. His witty interventions in the House often brought hon. Members and Ministers down to earth. I join with you, Mr. Speaker, in expressing our sincere condolences to Mrs. Small and her family at this time of bereavement.
The answer to the hon. Member's Question is "Yes, Sir."

Mr. Shepherd: Is the Minister of State aware of a letter which I wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland in which I drew attention to the investment by the Scottish Development Agency in the firm Highlands Metals Limited, of Elgin? Is he aware that many people in Hereford feel strongly that public money should not he used to create jobs which will lead to job losses in Hereford? Does he agree that the industry in which the investment was made was oversubscribed? May we have an assurance that the Minister will stop further development of this type? Will he ensure that no further nonsensical investments of this kind occur?

Mr. MacKenzie: The hon. Member was kind enough to write to me about this matter. The SDA is not directly managed by me, nor would I wish to be. It exercises its own commercial judgment. I know that it carries out certain studies and makes projections in the market. It is right that it should be free to do this work if it believes that there is a market. I understand that, particularly in oil-related industry, there is a need for business of this kind. It is rather surprising that a Conservative Member should express a fear of competition.

Mr. Monro: rose—

Mr. Shepherd: On a point of order. I am not at all happy with the Minister's answer. I give notice that I shall seek to raise the question on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has effectively cut out any further supplementaries to his Question.

Prison Population

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with steps being taken to reduce the level of the Scottish prison population.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): As indicated in the Queen's Speech, my right hon. Friend is contemplating legislation on criminal matters in Scotland. It is hoped to include in the legislation measures aimed at reducing the prison population.

Mr. Rifkind: On behalf of myself and my colleagues, I wish to express agreement with the Minister's comments about the passing of Willie Small. I am sure that the whole House regrets his passing.
Is the Minister aware that at present more than half of the prisoners who are admitted to Scottish prisons are being admitted for non-payment of fines? Does he agree that this is clearly inhibiting the prison service from doing its proper job of dealing with those convicted of more serious offences? What steps do the Government intend to take to improve the procedure for the attachment of earnings for those who have fines imposed upon them so that the necessity of sending them to prison is avoided?

Mr. Ewing: There are various ways of using figures. On any day of the week no more than 4 per cent. of the prison population is there because of non-payment of fines. Such prisoners seldom spend more than one day in prison. Those who do spend more than one day in prison are very few indeed. That is not to say that we do not recognise that there is a problem. It would be wise for the House to await the publication of the legislative proposals to which I referred earlier.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: On behalf of myself and my colleagues, may I express our regret at the passing of Willie Small? We shall miss his friendly personality in the House.
In the absence of any statement on the Social Work (Scotland) Act document about provision, supervision and aftercare, will the Minister make some comment? These matters are important, in view of the high prison population in Scotland.

Mr. Ewing: It is fair to say that the numbers of social workers employed in the Scottish prison service have increased. I do not want to give the impression that the prison population is increasing. It is falling, although by small numbers. The average daily population is smaller than it has been for some years. We are therefore not altogether unsuccessful. The legislative proposals that we publish will be designed to achieve even greater success.

Mr. Carmichael: I welcome the possibility of new legislation on prison reform. However, will my hon. Friend pay

attention to the question of the numbers who go to prison for non-payment of fines? The number involved may appear small, but when the all-party group met prison officers it was told that one of the most irritating parts of their job was the long process of introducing persons into prison, recording all the details and taking all the other necessary steps, only to find, when the process was completed, that the fine had been paid and the work had been wasted.

Mr. Ewing: My hon. Friend has made a substantial point. There is no difference in terms of what the prison officer has to do on admissions to prison, whether the offence is of non-payment of a fine or one in respect of where the person concerned has to serve a sentence. We recognise this fact and it is being considered in our proposals for legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall ask hon. Members to put briefer questions, so that we may have briefer replies and in that way make much better progress.

Hunterston (Reactor Closure)

Mr. Gordon Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the recent closedown of an advanced gas-cooled reactor at Hunterston and what are the consequences for the Scottish electricity generation programme.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) on 15th December. The South of Scotland Electricity Board does not expect to encounter any difficulty, as a result of the incident at Hunterston, in meeting the demand for electricity.

Mr. Wilson: In that event, will the Minister of State indicate whether the Government intend to Dress forward with the Craigroyston pumped storage project before the use of the Torness site? If the Government intend to use the Torness site, will there be a fresh public inquiry, because the previous public inquiry related to the SGHW reactor?

Mr. MacKenzie: The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has not as yet put forward specific proposals to me or my


Department on the Craigroyston project. I know that it is discussing the matter with many of the local people concerned and that it is listening to their views. On Torness, until the Government have decided on the type of reactor to be built it would be precipitate to make any announcement on the question of a planning inquiry.

Dr. Bray: Are the reports correct that, in spite of the availability of electricity from other sources, those other sources are more expensive, and that the accident at Hunterston will therefore result in a substantial increase in the price of electricity in Scotland?

Mr. MacKenzie: Electricity will have to be supplied from more expensive sources, but since we have not yet had a full and final report from the electricity board, because it has not completed its inquiry, and we do not know how long the station will be closed, it would not be right to make any judgments about the effect on tariffs.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that we share his sadness and that of the House on the passing of William Small? He was among the kindest and most conscientious of our colleagues. He had a superb record of service to both Glasgow and the trade union movement.
When does the Minister expect the problems of Hunterston to be resolved? Secondly, will he comment on the apparent difficulty of the SNP in supporting the extension of nuclear power in Scotland while holding rallies and handing out pamphlets opposing the dumping of nuclear waste anywhere in Scotland?

Mr. MacKenzie: I am sorry, but I cannot tell the hon. Member when we shall have a report. I can assure him, however, that the electricity board is conducting a thorough inquiry and will want as much publicity as possible for it. On the second point, concerning the attitude of the SNP, I am sure the hon. Member will agree that we are all sometimes somewhat confused by that party's attitude not only to this problem but to many others. That attitude seems to depend on which day of the week the speech is made and who happens to make it.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it premature to ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that what

occurred at Hunterston will not be regarded as a black mark when crucial decisions are taken upon the advanced gas-cooled reactor system?

Mr. MacKenzie: I have discussed this with the chairman of the electricity board and he has assured me that this will in no way prejudice further discussion of the matter.

Employment

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the latest results of each of the special employment measures introduced to combat unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: About 53,000 people in Scotland are currently benefiting from the special employment measures. I am placing the detailed breakdown of the figures in the Official Report.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's bold and imaginative measures have been warmly welcomed in Scotland, as they have decisively reduced unemployment? Is it possible, however, to step up those provisions, especially in areas of high unemployment, such as Coatbridge and Airdrie?

Mr. MacKenzie: We are deeply conscious of the problems of my hon. Friend's constituency and of other industrial constituencies in all parts of Scotland. He will recall that it was not so many weeks ago that we announced new measures, which we think will be of considerable value. I am thinking particularly of the youth opportunities programme, which comes into being on 1st April this year and will provide 230,000 places for young people throughout the United Kingdom. We also propose to use the special temporary employment programme, which will give opportunities to 25,000 adults.

Mr. Monro: Does the Minister think that there might be ways of improving co-ordination between the large number of bodies involved in bringing jobs to Scotland? Is he satisfied that the present procedures are adequate, and will he consider looking at this matter in detail?

Mr. MacKenzie: For many years, particularly before I became a Minister, I was concerned about the number of people and agencies involved in job creation and inward investment. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) will recall that interest from his experience in the Scottish Office. We now have a Scottish Economic Planning Department which works very closely with the Scottish Development Agency and the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) and we have reached a fairly satisfactory state which avoids the proliferation of organisations involved in these matters.

Mrs. Bain: Does the Minister agree that the so-called bold and imaginative plans that the Government are implementing are so effective that Scottish unemployment is running against the United Kingdom trend and is continuing to rise? Already this week there have been announcements of closures in places such as Clydebank, which will add to the jobless total. Can the Minister see his way to reintroducing the regional employment premium, the withdrawal of which has been estimated to have cost Scotland 20,000 jobs so far?

Mr. MacKenzie: The hon. Lady should acknowledge that about 53,000 people in Scotland are already benefiting from these measures. They are of considerable help to many young people. As to whether the measures are the right ones, I can tell the House that they are under constant review. We decided not to continue the REP, but we introduced other measures, such as the youth opportunities scheme and the temporary employment subsidy, and provided more money for the Scottish Development Agency. There have been selective schemes to help industries such as foundries and machine tools, from which we in Scotland have benefited to a great extent.

Mr. Sillars: Does my right hon. Friend expect Scottish unemployment to be reduced substantially over the next six months?

Mr. MacKenzie: The hon. Gentleman would not be foolish enough to think that I would be prepared to make guesstimates of that kind.

Mr. Younger: We welcome the measures which are helping unemployed young people, but is the Minister aware that

most of those young people are still, in effect, unemployed in terms of having long-term worthwhile jobs with career prospects? Most of the 53,000 people that he has mentioned should be added to the unemployment total if we are to get a true picture of the failure of the Government on unemployment.

Mr. MacKenzie: I do not think that one can add the 53,000 to the total unemployed. We are taking action in a very difficult time of world recession to help young people to gain job experience, and that is a matter of considerable importance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have both said repeatedly that we do not regard these jobs as in any way a substitute for real jobs in the Scottish economy. We have taken measures to hold down inflation, and believe that those, with other measures that we are taking, will provide the real answer.

Following is the information:

SPECIAL EMPLOYMENT MEASURES

Detailed figures for the Government's special employment measures in Scotland are as follows:


Temporary Employment Subsidy
28,783


Job Creation Programme
11,542


Youth Employment Subsidy
941


Job Release Scheme
1,954


Work Experience Programme
4,601


Community Industry
886


Job Introduction Scheme
4


Small Firms' Employment Subsidy
1,038

In addition, 2,808 people are currently benefiting from the Government's special training measures in Scotland.

Queen Margaret College, Edinburgh

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider sympathetically the funding of drama provision for Queen Margaret College in Edinburgh; and if he will make a statement as to the criteria he would use to judge such an application in this connection.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): Courses in drama have been provided at Queen Margaret College since 1972–73. The college has proposed an extension to provide a drama teaching wing; a decision on this project will have to wait until an assessment has been made of the suitability of the surplus accommodation


which will become available at Dunfermline College of Education.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, as far as it went, but is he aware that £40,000 has been spent by the college, with the approval of the Scottish Education Department, to realign a road for the building of the drama teaching wing extension? Bearing in mind that this is the recognised centre of drama in the East of Scotland, will he give the college advice on what it should do in this connection?

Mr. McElhone: I understand the question about the £40,000. I suggest that the hon. Member cannot have it both ways. He wants us to save 10 colleges of education, with a falling school population. At the same time we have got to consider diversification and use of very expensive alternative accommodation. Discussions are taking place and a discussion with the SED is taking place at Dunfermline tomorrow.

Work Force

Mr. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the increase in the work force in Scotland that is anticipated in the next 15 years.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: Labour force projections for Scotland up to 1991 are at present being calculated and will be published as soon as they are available.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister of State realise that that is a most extraordinary reply in view of the reply given by the Secretary of State for Employment in c. 256 of Hansard on 13th December 1977, in which he was apparently able to calculate the United Kingdom figure? Does this mean that the Government's projections are to be on a United Kingdom basis and that they have no idea what the position is in Scotland?

Mr. MacKenzie: We have made projections on a United Kingdom basis until the 1981 period, but we do not have figures for 1991 in Scotland. We are preparing them, and they will be published as soon as possible.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the Minister aware that at Portlethen, near Aberdeen, and at Montrose in my constituency there

have been losses of jobs in recent weeks of over 60 in each case, directly as a result of agriculture policies followed by the present Government? Is he aware that these policies are now having an effect on employment in processing industries for agriculture? If the Government get these policies right, particularly the devaluation of the green pound, that will help future employment in Scotland.

Mr. MacKenzie: I am conscious of the difficulties which the hon. Gentleman has, particularly in industry. However, I am bound to say that I am not quite so conscious of the problems that he has mentioned in agriculture. We shall do what we can to help on the industry side.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the most recent projection for the rise in the work force in Scotland up to 1986 is about 150,000? Does he not, therefore, take the point that there is a great deal to be done to stimulate investment in manufacturing industry and other jobs in Scotland? Does he further accept that the solution to the unemployment problem in Scotland is a Socialist one, and that if we leave it to the capitalist economy we shall be in greater danger?

Mr. MacKenzie: I think that it has to be borne in mind that because of the rise in the birth rate in 1960 many more people have come on to the labour market than there have been for some years, plus the fact that there are a number of women now coming on to the labour market. The measures which the Government have taken, particularly in the setting up of the Scottish Development Agency, the National Enterprise Board, and the Industry Act 1975, are the sort of measures likely to create jobs in the United Kingdom and particularly in Scotland.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: When will the Secretary of State and the Minister be able to give us some indication of the Government's plans for steel, an industry in which Scotland is facing the greatest crisis in years? This is in an industry in which we have tried the Socialist policy of nationalisation for some time. What is the outlook for steel? Will the Minister look at the October 1974 election manifesto on which the Labour Party was returned to power? Will he indicate


whether the temporary employment subsidy is seriously under threat because of the recent discussions with the EEC?

Mr. MacKenzie: We will make our findings known as soon as possible on the question of steel.
On the second point raised by the hon. Member, I am taken aback by what he said. When the Conservative Party was in power it was very anxious to close a great number of steelworks, and it was left to the Labour Party in 1974 to ask my colleague, Lord Beswick, to go through all the proposals and ensure that we did not have the dreadful closures that the Conservative Opposition envisaged at that time. The protection of those jobs has been of great value to the people whom I represent.

Tertiary Education Council

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about his proposals for a council for tertiary education in Scotland.

Mr. McElhone: I refer to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow. Pollok (Mr. White) yesterday.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the Minister aware that we welcome the reply to which he has just referred? Does he agree that there is no need to wait for devolution to set up this council, as the proposal has widespread support in Scotland?
Is he aware that we hope to submit our comments on this scheme? Meanwhile, will he agree to drop this awful word "tertiary" and try to find something simpler and more straightforward, such as "higher", so that the people can understand and realise what the proposals are all about?

Mr. McElhone: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind welcome to the proposed council. I shall certainly consider his point about the word "tertiary". It is understood by most people in education. I hope that all hon. Members will submit views on the whole question of this council.

Mrs. Bain: There is broad general agreement in Scotland that this council should be established, and the proposal has been welcomed by various education

bodies in the post-school sector. Does the Minister accept that a crucial education matter, which must be dealt with quickly, is the problem of further education lecturers who still have not had their pay anomalies straiightened out?

Mr. McElhone: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Mr. Rifkind: Will the Minister indicate whether the Government will be giving support to the Bill which has been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), in view of the support that this Bill has received from all sides of the House and from all education bodies in Scotland?

Mr. William Ross: Wait and see.

Mr. McElhone: We should wait and see how the council is set up. I am always grateful for help and advice from my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). I think that most hon. Members would agree that to set up an investigation into further or higher education at the same time as setting up a council would be a duplication of effort and a great waste of time. In my opinion, looking at the history of education, every time we have a problem there is a cry for a council investigation. If I accepted all the cries for investigations, there would no education at all in Scotland.

Scottish TUC

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the STUC.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend has agreed to meet the STUC again but no date has yet been arranged.

Mr. Canavan: Does my right hon. Friend realise that it is now about four months since he had discussions with the STUC about the Scottish Timber Product situation at Cowie, in my constituency, and that there is increasing concern among the work force and others about the long delay in this matter? If it is the case that no suitable buyer comes in with a firm offer for the company, will the Minister ask the Scottish Development Agency to consider taking over complete ownership of the company


under the terms of Section 2 of the Scottish Development Agency Act?

Mr. MacKenzie: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I am very conscious of the delay and of his concern and that of the shop stewards, whom I met only on Friday of last week with my hon. Friend. Negotiations are taking place at present and I would not wish to say anything which would in any way jeopardise the prospects for those negotiations, which I hope will come to a successful conclusion.

Mr. Crawford: Will the Minister tell the STUC that the Labour Government last night disgracefully voted against one of the things dearest to the heart of the STUC—namely, that the SDA should be devolved to the Scottish Assembly? Does he agree that the Government's vote against devolving the SDA to the Scottish Assembly will seriously hamper the SDA in its work?

Mr. MacKenzie: I heard what the hon. Gentleman had to say last night. I was slightly puzzled because he seems to be completely misrepresenting the view of the STUC.

Mr. Buchan: When my right hon. Friend meets the STUC, would it not be useful to have a general discussion on the whole question of the continual misrepresentations and lies that are uttered in this House about the attitude of the STUC to this matter? This is just the most recent example. There have been several. I think that it should be stopped.

Mr. MacKenzie: I think that the STUC, which I meet frequently, made a fair assessment of the attitude of the SNP to industrial matters. That was brought to a head when we had the public tearing-up of telegrams on the whole question of the nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Would it not help if the Minister suggested to the STUC that it should reconvene the one-day conferences on Scottish unemployment which it used to hold some years ago under the Conservative Government when the numbers of unemployed were fewer than half the present figure?

Mr. MacKenzie: The STUC meets frequently. It is both publicly and privately candid in its attitude and puts for

ward its views in a spirit of friendship, which I appreciate. I do not think that the STUC draws any distinction between Conservative and Labour Administrations.

Royal High School, Edinburgh

Mr Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in converting the Royal High School in Edinburgh for the proposed Scottish Assembly; and what is the value of the work still to be completed.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The work described in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay) on 7th April 1977 is expected to be completed by the spring. About £500,000 has still to be spent on this work.

Mr. Knox: How does the cost of the work already completed compare with the estimates?

Mr. Ewing: The work already completed has £500,000 to be spent on it. The additional work to be done can best be explained by pointing out that a balance of £1,250,000 is still available between the £2 million already announced and the £3·25 million declared in the explanatory and financial memorandum.

Mr. Reid: If the Government are providing a largely "get-you-in" service until the Assembly can decide whether it will be a Committee or Chamber-based legislature, what is the earliest date by which Westminster's share of the work can be completed?

Mr. Ewing: I should make it clear that the only service that I am interested in providing to the SNP is a "get-you-out", not a "get-you-in", service.
We are confident that the premises will be ready for taking over by the Assembly when the people of Scotland have had their say on the devolution proposals.

Mr. Dalyell: If the service that my hon. Friend is interested in providing is "get-them-out", why on earth does he spend his time supporting devolution?

Mr. Ewing: In view of your appeal for short answers, Mr. Speaker, I shall not become involved in that matter.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Have the Government considered alternative uses for the


building in the event of the people of Scotland saying "No"?

Mr. Ewing: All possibilities are continually under consideration.

Fishing Vessels (Construction)

Sir John Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new fishing vessels are now being built in Scottish yards.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: Twenty-nine fishing vessels are currently being built with assistance from public funds. Also being built are, I understand, one small vessel for home owners without Exchequer aid, one for export and two speculatively.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does the Minister agree that there is grave doubt about the use to which these new boats can be put unless we achieve renegotiation of the Common Market fisheries policy? Is there any information from Brussels that he can give us?

Mr. MacKenzie: The only information that I have from Brussels is that, as the House may have noticed, my right hon. Friend is not here. The Under-Secretary of State was asked to go to Brussels last night so that my right hon. Friend could be here today to answer these questions. Unhappily, the weather conditions are such that he is still stranded somewhere between Brussels and London. I know that he would wish me, on his behalf, to apologise to the House for his absence.
On the general issue about the fishing industry, I think that it would be more helpful to wait until my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have completed their negotiations and we have a fulsome statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I appreciate that the Minister is aware of the deep concern about the future of the fishing boat building industry and the fishing industry in general. Is he aware of the extremely depressing news out of Brussels not only yesterday but today? Is he further aware that, so long as the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture stand up for the preference of the British fishing industry, particularly the 50-mile zone, he will have the full support of both sides of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is anticipating another Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister aware that there is a serious problem for small boat builders in Scotland, since they require continuity of work if they are to remain in business? Is he further aware that there are indications that the amount of loan funds available for the purchase and building of new fishing boats this year has been cut? Will he review the matter if he finds that some yards are running into difficulties?

Mr. MacKenzie: We are conscious of the problems of small boat builders throughout the whole country. For these reasons, the Government have given valuable assistance to them in recent times. Indeed, that was indicated to me only last week when I went to the Boat Show.
The second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary referred to a matter which will be reviewed by my right hon. Friend.

Dr. Bray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there seems to be an opportunity for building fishing boats for the new fishing port opening on the western coast of the Isle of Lewis? The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), who represents that area, is not present, but I am sure that he will not mind my asking whether those opportunities will be available for inshore fishing boat builders from Scotland rather than European fishing boat builders.

Mr. MacKenzie: That is one reason why the SDA took the initiative in that direction. We want to help Scottish fishermen and Scottish small boat builders whenever possible.

Mr. Penhaligon: Is the Minister aware that Scottish purse seiners and fishing boats are supplying 12 Soviet bloc factory ships in the port of Falmouth with 600 tons of mackerel a day? Will he assure the Cornish people that these boats will not continue to come to Cornwall and rape and kill the industry there as they have their own?

Mr. MacKenzie: That is an interesting question, but the hon. Gentleman must realise that it has nothing to do with the Question that I am answering now. Perhaps he will put it down to my right hon.


Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Hill Farmers

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied that hill and upland farmers have received a fair financial return during 1977; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Harry Ewing: As indicated in the annual review White Paper, published last week, average net incomes on hill sheep and upland rearing farms in Scotland are estimated to have gone up by 43 per cent. and 16 per cent. respectively in 1976–77. Further increases are forecast for 1977–78.

Mr. Monro: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that the staggering increase in the costs of production of beef on hill and upland farms far outweighs any profit on sheep? Is he further aware of the grave damage done to farming generally in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom by the Government's failure to devalue the green pound?

Mr. Ewing: Many interests have to be balanced before a decision can be taken on the devaluation of the green pound. It is worthy of note that the Government have devalued the green pound on numerous occasions, and will no doubt do so again, but only in the interests of the nation as a whole.

Mr. Canavan: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the difficulties faced by farmers stem directly from our membership of the Common Market? Instead of listening to the Tories and the SNP, who are calling for a huge devaluation of the green pound, which would have a massive inflationary effect on food prices, would it not be better to scrap completely the common agricultural policy and revert to a system of deficiency payments which would ensure a fair price for both the farmer and the housewife?

Mr. Ewing: In my usual fair and generous manner, the best that I can say to the farmers is that they seem to have some slight misunderstanding of the effect of the common agricultural policy.

Mr. Grimond: I should like to associate the Liberal Party with the tributes that have been paid to our colleague who died so tragically this morning.
In addition to the need to devalue the green pound, have the Government any plans to increase the bill livestock compensatory allowances? This has been a poor year for cattle sales in Orkney, and this seems to be the only way in which farmers might get a fair price.

Mr. Ewing: The whole economic position of the hill and upland sector is being examined in the annual review of one agriculture industry. The results of that review should not be anticipated. The point made by the right hon. Gentleman will be taken into consideration.

Mr. Welsh: Does the Minister agree about the importance of sheep farming in maintaining hill and upland farm viability? What estimates have been made of the effect on agriculture in Scotland of the French and Irish sheepmeat deal? What steps will be taken to expand Scottish sheepmeat trade with EEC countries?

Mr. Ewing: I accept the importance of sheep farming in maintaining the viability of these mixed units.
I will consider the other specific matter that the hon. Gentleman raised, and write to him about it.

Mr. Buchan: Further to the point raised in the first supplementary question, may I ask whether it is not the case that there is a general problem facing hill and upland areas, much of it derived from high feedstuff prices, which in turn arise directly from our unprincipled entry into the Common Market undertaken by the Tories? Does my hon. Friend not agree that, rather than going for mass pressure and mass capitulation to this unprincipled demand for the complete devaluation of the green pound, it would be much more sensible to give a direct injection of capital and increase the hill calf subsidy? Will my hon. Friend give urgent attention to another point that has been raised in this exchange, namely, the French-Irish deal on sheepmeat, which is coming close to breaking the spirit if not the leter of the Rome Declaration?

Mr. Ewing: I have given a specific undertaking to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Welsh) that I will look in detail at the points he has made. I recognise the economic difficulties being suffered by hill and upland farmers. Their position is being considered in the


review of the agriculture industry, but I must ask for the indulgence of the House when I say that I cannot anticipate the outcome of that review.

Mr. Younger: Is the Minister aware that, due to soaring costs of all kinds, there are many Scottish farmers who will be expecting a net reduction in their income in the coming year? Will he bear in mind that while the rest of the population is busy squabbling about whether they will get a 10 per cent. increase this is not the case for the farmers? Should not the farmers at least be dealt with on the same basis?

Mr. Ewing: That supplementary question does not lead me to the view that many farmers will suffer a net reduction in their income in the coming year. The forecast that I gave to the House was that farmers will have an increase in income this year, although some farmers in various sectors might have some difficulties. It is this aspect which is being examined.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest situation in the fishing industry.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: The prospects for the industry depend to a considerable extent on the outcome of the negotiations on the common fisheries policy which are still in progress in Brussels.

Mr. Sproat: Does not the Minister agree that the latest EEC proposals remain totally unacceptable? One does not know whether to treat them as a joke or as an insult. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the news coming out of Brussels today is leading to fears in the industry that there will be a sell-out on limits and quotas as well as on conservation? Does he not agree that there can be no substitute for a 50-mile exclusively controlled limit and for fair quotas backed by strict licences?

Mr. MacKenzie: I very much resent the suggestion by the hon. Member that there has been some sort of sell-out. The hon. Gentleman and all who are interested in the fishing industry would be well advised to wait until the negotiations have been completed and my right hon. Friends the

Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have reported these matters to the House. I know the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. He has listened sympathetically to the views put to him about a 50-mile limit. I know that both my right hon. Friends are pursuing all these policies with considerable vigour in Brussels.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable satisfaction throughout Scotland, as elsewhere, about the vigorous stand which both my right hon. Friends are taking in the fisheries negotiations? Is he further aware that this feeling of satisfaction is particularly marked since people are conscious of the weak negotiating position which this country had as a result of the terms of entry into the EEC approved by the previous Conservative Government? Will he undertake to see that messages are sent to my right hon. Friends to the effect that they can tell the Commission during the present negotiations that they cannot accept any deal on fishing unless it is first approved by this House?

Mr. MacKenzie: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about the way in which my right hon. Friends are approaching this difficult problem. I can assure him that the message he has given will be passed on. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has done some hard work, which has been much appreciated by hon. Members interested in this subject.

Mr. Watt: May I add my congratulations to both right hon. Gentlemen on their tremendously firm stand in Brussels? Does the Minister recognise the difficult situation which has arisen vis-à-vis our fishermen and Norwegian fishermen? Is he aware that in the absence of any agreement in Brussels there is no reciprocal agreement between ourselves and Norway? Will he take steps to negotiate an interim and reciprocal agreement, if necessary?

Mr. MacKenzie: As the hon. Gentleman knows, these questions do not all concern matters with which I would normally deal. I can assure him that all the comments which have been made will be passed to my right hon. Friend.


Everyone recognises the expertise that he has acquired since becoming Secretary of State.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: May I say that we appreciate the extreme pressure under which the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland are operating? May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that as long as his right hon. Friends maintain a tough stand in the face of unreasonable claims by our European partners they will have the full support of the House? If they weaken, the situation will be different.

Mr. MacKenzie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I know the stand which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland takes. I have seen him operating during negotiations on other matters. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that Scotland's views on these matters will be fairly, squarely and vigorously put to those in Brussels.

Emergency Medical Services Hospitals

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in what way it is intended to replace emergency medical services hospitals still operating in Scotland.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The current National Health Service major capital building programme for Scotland provides for the eventual replacement of six of the seven hospitals which were originally built as wartime emergency medical services hospitals and are still in use.

Mr. Galbraith: Will the Minister say a word about the priority with which these hospitals will be built? Will he say whether the replacements will be large hospitals or in the nature of cottage hospitals? Has he any idea of the upper limit? Can he say which is the most expensive?

Mr. Ewing: It would take too long to go into the detail of the six hospitals. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about them if he would like me to do so. A general point that I can make is that Raigmore is in band A; Peel, Bangour General and Bridge of Earn are in band B; and Ballochmyle, which the hon. Gentleman may know very well, is in

band C of the major building programme which was announced on 2nd May. The plans are being prepared at present.

Mr. David Steel: Since one of those six hospitals serves my constituency, may I ask whether the Minister is in a position to tell the House whether he has yet received the representations from the Border Area Health Board and the Border Regional Council? Is he aware that both bodies make it clear that public opinion has been demonstrated to be clearly on the side of the new hospital, that the limited objections which have been received have in part been met and that the rest must be balanced against the weight of public opinion, which is in favour of pressing ahead quickly with the new building?

Mr. Ewing: My Department is very much aware of the need to have the district general hospital built on the location that has been selected. The right hon. Gentleman has been very active in this matter. It is true to say that the Border General District Hospital will replace Peel, which was one of the wartime emergency hospitals. The plans are now well advanced.

Dr. M. S. Miller: While many of these old hospitals did excellent work, may I ask my hon. Friend to keep in mind the fact that the rebuilding of hospitals must be rationalised in respect of catchment areas, so that the most up-to-date equipment can be supplied?

Mr. Ewing: That is one of the prime factors which we have in mind. Another is the fact that we are trying to shift the emphasis in the Health Service from the acute side of medicine—without running that down—to the long stay side. All these factors have been considered in this programme.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Since the cost of running a new hospital inevitably seems to be greater than the cost of running an old hospital, may I ask my hon. Friend to give an assurance that, as well as providing the capital cost of the hospitals, the Government will ensure that the relevant area health board is provided with the running costs?

Mr. Ewing: The problem is not to do with running costs, which are met from


revenue, but rather with the commissioning costs of a new hospital. We have had one or two instances where the commissioning costs have not been able to be met by the various area health boards. This is one of the matters we have under consideration.

Lorry Drivers (Hours of Work)

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the road haulage industry about the effect on Scottish transport costs of the EEC regulations on drivers' hours; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend has kept in close touch with developments on this matter through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who is well aware of the special problems that the regulations pose for the more remote parts of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend has assured those Scottish transport bodies, including the Scottish Transport Group, which have written to him of his concern and of his efforts to obtain the best possible terms for a staged implementation.

Mr. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that the 450-km limit for a daily journey is causing serious problems in Scottish transport and will have the result of increasing costs substantially? Is he aware of the special problems which this limit creates since the unions are unwilling to have the tachographs installed? Does he see any way out of the problem of the 450-km limit, which has to apply as a result of our membership of the Community?

Mr. MacKenzie: It is right to say that some concessions have been made on the 450-km limit which have been valuable to Scottish interests. We are grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport for having negotiated them. It is not easy to quantify the costs at this moment. All the points that have been raised by the hon. Gentleman will be borne in mind. From time to time we come upon tricky problems following our entry into the EEC. The hon. Member is not, perhaps, as enthusiastic about our entry as are some of his colleagues. We have to make these regulations work, and we shall do so.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will do me the favour of studying Hansard when it comes out tomorrow and seeing how long the supplementary questions and answers have been. That accounts for the fact that we have reached fewer Questions today than we have reached for at least the last two months.

A75

Mr. Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what improvements he intends to put in hand on the A75 trunk road in 1978.

Mr. McElhone: Improvement schemes at Shennanton and Drumflower Bridge are planned to start in 1978.

Mr. Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman take another look at Glenluce and see whether he can at least begin the process of preparing a scheme for a bypass for that much suffering village?

Mr. McElhone: I will pass the hon. Gentleman's comments on to my noble Friend who deals with day-to-day problems of roads in Scotland.

Mr. Monro: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, since the rapid increase in the Irish container traffic, the situation on this road is deteriorating rapidly? Will he give as much priority to this road as he does to the roads for the North-East for oil? Will he also look at the ring road around Dumfries?

Mr. McElhone: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am awaiting the results of a study carried out by the Dumfries and Galloway Regional Council. This road will be progressed year by year. We are spending a considerable sum of money on improving it.

Education (European Community Directorate)

Mr. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Scottish Education Department and the Scottish Assembly will have direct involvement in educational decision-making within the European Community following the creation in the EEC of the new Directorate General XII for education.

Mr. McElhone: It is the United Kingdom that is a member State of the Community and it would be inappropriate


for any part of the United Kingdom to have separate representation. My Department has participated fully in the work of the EEC Education Committee since its beginning in 1974.

Mr. Reid: Is this not another case where, once the Assembly is set up, Edinburgh will have to talk directly to Brussels, with the London link withering away? Will the hon. Gentleman take steps, after the Assembly is established, to ensure that papers on matters both devolved and within the competence of the EEC are sent directly to the appropriate Scottish body without having to go through an English Minister first?

Mr. McElhone: We shall no doubt discuss this matter tonight, when we debate education on the Scotland Bill. I repeat that it is the United Kingdom that is the body representing us in Erussels.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: No.

Mr. McElhone: If the hon. Lady wants to talk about a Scottish presence, I remind her that I myself represented the United Kingdom last June in Strasbourg when we had the conference of European Education Ministers.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend confirm that representation of this kind by the Edinburgh Assembly would be unacceptable to our European partners?

Mr. McElhone: I must agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Is it not clear that the absence of the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State from the Government Front Bench today indicates that all of Scotland's special interests can be represented in Europe under the present arrangements that the Government have?

Mr. McElhone: I agree.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Lord Advocate what are the present responsibilities which he has allocated to the Solicitor-General for Scotland.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I have made no formal alloca

tion of responsibilities to the Solicitor-General for Scotland. The Solicitor-General assists me generally in the discharge of my functions.

Mr. Rifkind: Does the right hon and learned Gentleman consider that he will continue to need the assistance of a second Scottish Law Officer in the event of the Government's devolution proposals being implemented?

The Lord Advocate: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the effect of the Scotland Bill would be that the two Scottish Law Officers would remain United Kingdom Law Officers, Westminster-based. There is no proposal to change that.

Oral Answers to Questions — WARRANT SALES

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Lord Advocate what representations he has received about the practice notes recently made by sheriffs-principal, laying down that a creditor must apply for a warrant sale within six months of a poinding.

The Lord Advocate: I have received no such representations.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that solicitors have represented to me that this six-months ruling should be made flexible for these debts to be recovered and some humiliating warrant sales avoided? Will he give consideration to this view?

The Lord Advocate: The matter is for the sheriffs-principal, who have issued the practice notes, but I will take note of the point raised by my hon. Friend. Perhaps I should take him to task slightly in that in his Question he rather implies that a creditor must apply for a warrant sale within six months of a poinding. The practice notes are carefully worded and provide that a poinding shall be effective for six months from the date of execution, but that if an application for an extension is made to the sheriff within that period he may extend the period beyond six months but in no case to more than 12 months.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Lord Advocate how many representations he has received about changing the law on warrant sales.

The Lord Advocate: I have had correspondence with two hon. Members and the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. I have also received letters from two members of the public.

Mr. Canavan: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the public humiliation and degradation that warrant sales cause to many ordinary working people and their families when their furniture and personal belongings are hauled into the street and sold for a mere pittance? Pending the Law Commission's inquiry, will my right hon. and learned Friend consult his fellow Ministers about the possibility of calling an immediate moratorium on the use of warrant sales by public bodies such as the gas and electricity boards?

The Lord Advocate: I take note of the point raised by my hon. Friend. I know that warrant sales cause a lot of distress. I think that the proper way to investigate this area is in terms of the inquiry of the Law Commission. I remind my hon. Friend that when a similar point was put to me on 30th November, I answered my hon. Friend the Member for Fife. Central (Mr. Hamilton) to the effect that if it could be shown that systematic abuses of the law are taking place I should consider what action can be taken in co-operation with other Ministers.

Oral Answers to Questions — GLASGOW SHERIFF COURT (STAFF)

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Lord Advocate what plans he has to improve working conditions for staff at the Glasgow Sheriff Court.

The Lord Advocate: The only staff for whom I am responsible at Glasgow Sheriff Court are those in the Procurator Fiscal Service. I have arranged that most of them will move out of the sheriff courthouse to new and improved accommodation.

Mr. Taylor: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that these premises will be considerably far away from the sheriff court? Would it not be infinitely better if arrangements could be made so that the court and the staff for it were in one building? Will he also

pay an urgent visit to the court, where I am sure that he will be appalled by the staff conditions and the facilities for the general public?

The Lord Advocate: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the staff for whom I am responsible are those in the Procurator Fiscal Service. In that connection, I propose to pay an early visit to Glasgow. But I must remind the hon. Gentleman also that the problems which have led to overcrowding in the sheriff court building will be eased to some extent because it is hoped that two further courts will come into existence on 6th March. The hon. Gentleman referred to the distance of the procurator fiscal's office from the sheriff court. Distance has proved not to be any disadvantage for other sheriff courts where already these moves have taken place. I further remind the hon. Gentleman that legal practitioners for the defence are not based in the building. Indeed, there is an argument that neither side in litigation should be based in the building where the court is based.

Mr. Buchan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend seek an assurance from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) that if the necessary expenditure to improve the conditions for the staff at the court is allowed he will not be the first to join in an outcry about increased public expenditure?

The Lord Advocate: I think that it would be reasonable to ask the hon. Gentleman for that assurance.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROCURATORS FISCAL

Mr. MacCormick: asked the Lord Advocate what number of part-time procurators fiscal at present serve in Scotland; and if he is satisfied with their remuneration and conditions of service.

The Lord Advocate: There is only one part-time procurator fiscal, and he is located at Oban. I am reasonably satisfied with his remuneration and conditions of service.

Mr. MacCormick: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, particularly because of the change in the system of district courts, the work load of the part-time procurators fiscal has significantly increased? In view of the


present remuneration, would it not have been fair and proper to make the necessary changes to remuneration and conditions of service?

The Lord Advocate: Factors of that kind are taken into account because the remuneration of a part-time fiscal is related to a suitable point in the full-time procurator fiscal scale. The matter to which the hon. Gentleman has referred is not unique to part-time procurators fiscal. This increase in business has taken place throughout the Procurator Fiscal Service.

SOMALIA

Mr. Amery: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Somali Government's request to Her Majesty's Government for arms, and his Department's refusal to accede to this.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): No reply has been given to the Somali Government's approach, which we received on Monday. We will consider the request carefully in consultation with our allies. We are at present not supplying arms to either Somalia or Ethiopia. The conflict in the Horn is complex in its history and damaging in its effect. We have worked actively for a negotiated settlement and believe the conflict should be settled within an African context and without outside interferernce. We have supported OAU mediation efforts. The British Government would be prepared to support an approach to the Security Council if this seemed likely to help work out a basis for a settlement.

Mr. Amery: While welcoming the Foreign Secretary's statement that no reply has yet been sent—I was, therefore, perhaps wrong in speaking of a request, which was based on Press reports this morning—may I ask whether he agrees that the conflict and the problems, great though they are, are largely incidental and that there is another essential matter? Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the build-up of Ethiopian arms, with massive supplies of Soviet arms and with Cuban and Soviet military personnel, constitute by themselves a threat to the area and a threat to peace in the area? Unless steps are taken to correct the

imbalance which this constitutes there is a real danger that we shall be faced with another Angola situation under which Ethiopia and the whole of the Horn of Africa will become a province of Soviet imperialism. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this would be a matter of very grave concern to the oil consumers in the West and in Japan, to the oil producers in the Gulf and to countries such as the Sudan, Egypt, Israel and Kenya and that it would dramatically affect their development?

Dr. Owen: I agree that this is a very complex issue. I also agree that the build-up in recent weeks of arms and men inside Ethiopia from outside the African continent could well turn what has been a very complex and damaging territorial dispute in Africa into an East-West issue. I do not believe that it is in the interests of anyone, let alone the Soviet Union and the West, for this dispute to become an East-West issue, but as that build-up proceeds, so it will inevitably become one.
On a number of occasions I have urged the Soviet Union and other countries to leave this issue to the OAU and to let it remain a dispute between Ethiopa and Somalia. I believe that the territorial integrity of countries must be respected. The way to abolish boundaries is by peaceful negotiation and not by armed aggression. What is now needed in this complex problem is mediation and the willingness between Ethiopia and Somalia to negotiate a settlement.

Mr. James Johnson: As one who has visited the Ogaden since the fighting began, may I say that I support my right hon. Friend's position in this complex situation at the moment? Will he tell the House what contingency planning he has in mind in the event of Mengistu and his Marxist régime building up aggression with the aid of 2,000 or 3,000 Cuban and Soviet advisers and massive numbers of MIGs and tanks flown from Aden? In the event of those forces getting to the Somali border and proceeding on to cut a land corridor to the Indian Ocean, what is our position then? Is any Anglo-American axis action open to us?

Dr. Owen: Just as I have made my position clear to the Somalis about the Ogaden, so this afternoon I shall be seeing the Deputy Foreign Minister of Ethiopia. I shall be making it quite clear


to him that were the Ethiopian forces to constitute any force from outside the continent to include Somalia territories, that would be a development of the utmost seriousness which all of us in the West would be bound to view with grave concern. I shall leave him under no illusions about the dangers of that sort of adventurism.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: While I agree about the complexities of the situation, surely the Somalis are just as good a customer for British arms as the Salvador Republic? Surely, in this moment of crisis for these people, this is the time when it will be in our interests to sell them arms?

Dr. Owen: As the House knows, we have not hitherto been supplying arms to Somalia since they ceased to have their arms supplied by the Soviet Union. The reason was that we felt that where there was a territorial dispute, and where there was a question about armed aggression, we should stand by the principle embodied in the OAU statement that this sort of territorial dispute should be solved peacefully. But there are reasons why we take the position that we have taken. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, we are now faced with a different request in changing circumstances, but the cause of the dispute is still something of which the West should take account.

Mr. Litterick: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is widespread support on this side of the House for the principles embodied in the remarks that he made a few moments ago? Bearing in mind, as we on this side do, that in the quite recent past hospitals in Eritrea have been destroyed ruthlessly by bombing raids mounted by British manufactured bombers supplied by a previous British Administration, does not this underline the Secretary of State's point that the accumulation of arms in these countries makes inevitable the destruction of human lives and property and does nothing constructive to the settlement of international disputes?

Dr. Owen: My hon. Friend is right to point out that a further complexity in the problem is the Eritrean dispute, apart from the Ogaden dispute. There are many other countries about which we have great concern, not least the concern of Kenya.

We have to take into account the feeling of the countries in the area. Although an East-West issue may become involved in this—I regret that it is—we must not lose sight of the fact that this is also a regional and African problem which is best solved by the normal mediation of the OAU.

Sir Bernard Braine: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that, despite his sensible and moderate remarks this afternoon, many of us find it difficult to stomach the indifference of not only this country but the whole of the West to the sufferings of the people of Ethiopa and Eritrea at the hands of the Ethiopean military régime? If it be the case that it may well be right not to sell arms to Somalia for the reasons hinted at, why do not the Government go to the United Nations and charge the military régime with the crimes that it has been committing against the Ethiopean people? Why do we stand indifferently on the sidelines?

Dr. Owen: I have not stood indifferently on the sidelines. I share a great many of the sentiments which the hon. Gentleman has expressed about some of the things that have been happening inside Ethiopa. No one would wish to come to this Dispatch Box and defend some of the practices going on in that country. I shall leave the Foreign Minister in no uncertain doubt about my views on that issue as well when I see him this afternoon.

Mr. Faulds: Will my right hon. Friend consider his response carefully? Does he not agree that the Somalis deserve our support because over the last century the Ethiopians have indulged in territorial aggrandisement at the expense of others. Is it not also the case that our Arab friends—this is not an unimportant point—are sympathetic to the Somalis, and that the Somalis have recently and sensibly turned against the Soviets?

Dr. Owen: I find myself agreeing with much of that. It is in our interests and a beneficial development that the Somalians should have turned to their traditional area of friendship—the West. We welcome that. In no way do we wish to build up antagonism with Somalia. I saw the Somali Vice-President in November and I made it clear to him that we


would continue to give aid to his country, and that we would even be prepared to increase aid. In that way we were demonstrating our wish to have friendship with the people and Goverenment of Somalia. However, I pointed out that this did not mean we could underwrite it by supplying arms to support the action taken in Ogaden.

Mr. Thorpe: Could the Foreign Secretary clarify the suggestion that Russian naval vessels have been bombarding Massawa? Does this not add a new and dangerous element to the situation? Although one accepts that the OAU States are the principal parties involved, would it not be sensible for the Government to refer the matter to the United Nations under Chapter 7 as a threat to peace, and call for an arms embargo?

Dr. Owen: I am prepared to consider going to the Security Council, but there is no point in going unless there is general background support for such an initiative. We have kept this matter under review for the past few months. I have read the reports of shelling by Soviet naval vessels, but I have no evidence to confirm or deny these reports.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will the Foreign Secretary explain to the House what he meant in his original reply when he said he did not intend to let this become an issue between East and West? Surely the threat of Soviet imperialism in Africa generally, and the particular threat to British shipping and oil supplies, are there for all to see. It sounds as if the Foreign Secretary is serving notice on the Soviet Union that he will not do anything at all and that the Soviets will have a free hand.

Dr. Owen: I did not say that, nor did I intend that meaning. I said that I regretted that this had become an issue between East and West and that we should not allow the dispute to become totally focused on East-West factors to the exclusion of other problems. I am aware that the dispute is being used by forces outside the African continent in a damaging way. I have spoken of the dangers of supplying arms in sophisticated quantities in these circumstances, and it is ironic that both Ethiopia and Somalia have been supplied with Soviet arms. It is dangerous to introduce advisers or

troops from outside. This form of adventurism has, in the past, served to increase the instability of the African continent, and I deplore this.

Mr. Newens: In view of the fact that the Foreign Secretary has agreed that there is an increasing danger of the struggle being in the interests of outside Powers, will he not agree that it would be completely immoral for Britain to agree to supply arms? This would only fuel the conflict in which desperately poor people on both sides would kill one another on an accelerated scale in no interests that could, in any remotely conceivable way, be their own. Would it not be totally immoral for us to supply arms in these circumstances?

Dr. Owen: We have tried to apply principles to our past decisions on the supply of arms, and we have kept these principles in mind in studying these requests. We must take account of the changed geo-political circumstances. There is no doubt that the central point here is not the supply of arms but the need to bring the parties in the dispute to the negotiating table and to resolve the problem. The history of some of these border problems in Ogaden in Eritrea goes back a very long time, and it is difficult to see the way clear to any negotiated settlement. However, some way must be found.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall call the four hon. Members who have been constantly rising to their feet since the beginning of the statement.

Mr. Blaker: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the Western Powers should make it quite clear to the Russians that, as in Angola, their conduct is inconsistent with detente? The Soviets cannot expect to enjoy good political relations with and economic benefits from the West if they continue to behave in this manner.

Dr. Owen: Yes, we have the ability to make this clear to the Soviet Union. We have not purely and simply supported our friends. We have made it clear to the Somalis that the way to solve the dispute is not by fighting on Ethiopian territory. This makes a stronger case for our saying that we resent outside intrusion and would take very seriously any Russian threat to Somalian territory. We


have made it clear that we believe that the dispute can be resolved only through mediation. I also made this clear to Mr. Gromyko when I visited Moscow and we had discussions about the Horn of Africa.

Mr. Hooley: Does not the Foreign Secretary agree that it would be the height of folly for us to pour arms into the Horn of Africa and recreate a Vietnam situation? Will he raise the matter with the Security Council with a view to encouraging top-level diplomatic meetings between the United States and the Soviet Union in order to bring down the temperature in the situation?

Dr. Owen: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. If there is the necessary and immediate consensus among OAU members it would be possible to go to the Security Council, and this would seem to be a logical step.

Mr. Higgins: As one who has recently visited Kenya, I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary appreciates the grave concern felt in that country about the possibility of the British Government providing arms. Will he take this into account, given the fact that Kenya is the keystone in opposing Communism in Africa?

Dr. Owen: I am grateful to the hon. Member. Many hon. Members in this House have friendship with Kenya. I realise that if we supplied arms this would cause grave concern to the Kenyans. There is an outstanding territorial claim by Somalia to Kenyan territory. In recent public statements the Somalis tried to reassure the Kenyans about this because they are so involved. In any decision that we made to supply arms feelings would run very strongly against us. I believe that the Kenyans want good relations with both Ethiopia and Somalia, and they want to see the dispute resolved peacefully.

Mr. Rifkind: Will the Foreign Secretary agree that Soviet and Cuban imperialism are now the only sources of external threat to the independence and integrity of African States? In order to avoid another fiasco like Angola, will he ensure that these matters are raised in the Security Council before and not after the battle is over?

Dr. Owen: I am in favour of using the United Nations. But if one goes outside the OAU it only makes it more difficult for the OAU to mediate. If OAU mediation can succeed, I support it. I have backed developments during the past few months, and important attempts have been made to resolve the dispute, though none of them has been successful. If the African countries support going to the Security Council, that would be much better. Some African countries, such as Nigeria, have played an important part in trying to bring about mediation.

Mr. John Davies: We Conservatives welcome the clear statement that the Foreign Secretary made that there is a risk of total disagreement and difference between East and West on this serious issue. We welcome his saying that because we have in mind something that the Foreign Secretary said when he was in Moscow, which surprised us. He said that he welcomed the identity of interests between Britain and the Soviet Union in Southern Africa. Therefore, we were pleased to hear his realistic view of the situation this afternoon.
The generality of experience is that the Western response to these threats has been tardy and too little. Does the Foreign Secretary think, as we do, that to rely too long on the conciliation of the OAU may prove entirely illusory? Will he agree that the problem is that it appears that the Americans have not deferred their reply to the arms request? Is it his understanding that the Americans have said that they would not supply arms? In that event the Russians are bound to feel that they have a free hand.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will make every effort, along with his friends in Washington, to see that the Soviet Union is left in no doubt that every possible step will be taken to ensure that Soviet domination in the Horn of Africa is not increased, with all the immense dangers to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) referred.

Dr. Owen: I do not know whether the Americans have replied. I have no information on that, but I know that we are discussing the matter with them and I would be surprised if they have given a


definitive reply on the démarche in Mogadishu.
In regard to what I did or did not say in the Soviet Union—and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman raised that matter—it must be taken in context because it was considerably quoted out of context. I was paying tribute to the fact that only a few weeks earlier the Soviet Union had accepted the Security Council's resolution on Rhodesia. That is very different from the way in which the right hon. Gentleman put the matter.
I made it clear when in Moscow that I thought that the Horn of Africa was a potentially serious area of conflict and that I would strongly criticise any attempt to involve outside Powers or to make it into an East-West issue. At that time I said that I hoped the Soviet Union would not follow that course. The Russians know that we have not been uncritical of some of the actions taken by the Somalis in regard to Ogaden. We believe that the way to deal with this matter is through negotiation. The Soviet Union is under no illusion that if it wishes to create in the Horn of Africa some new-found form of imperialism, it will be resisted. Equally, we must resist the temptation of seeing this complex issue solely in terms of East-West politics.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE (Mr. SPEAKER'S RULING)

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) raised a matter of privilege concerning a caption on the back page of The Guardian which, he claimed, implied a reflection on the impartiality of Mr. Speaker.
I should inform the House that within two hours of the complaint having been made I received a letter from Mr. Peter Preston, editor of The Guardian, giving me an assurance that no such reflection was intended and expressing regret that the caption may have been miscon

strued. I shall see that a copy of the complete text of the letter is recorded in the Journal.
In view of this, I am sure that the House will not wish to take action which might lead to the matter being pursued further. I am, however, deeply grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter, because the impartiality of Mr. Speaker is of the utmost importance to this House. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear".]
If the hon. Gentleman will now indicate to me that he no longer requires a ruling, I think that we might profitably consider the matter as closed.

Mr. Anthony Grant: In view of the apology that you have so promptly received, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that it is wise to accept your advice and leave the matter there.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me to say a few words on this matter.
The whole House will be delighted that this matter has been disposed of with common sense and without more ado. But there were interventions yesterday when the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) raised the matter—interventions suggesting that the freedom of the Press was involved in this issue. We all pay the highest regard to the freedom of the Press as a principle of the greatest importance, but equally important is the impartiality of the Chair. Although the Press is entitled to comment how it likes on our doings here and on your rulings, the one thing the Press may not comment on is your impartiality. It is inevitable that when such a matter is raised in the Press it damages the standing of the House and undermines the respect in which it is held.
I suggest that what you have said, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely correct. We cannot carry on the business of the House unless we have complete confidence in the impartiality of Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the House will agree.

PICKETING (REGISTRATION AND CONTROL)

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give the Home Secretary power to restrict picketing to a limited number of persons, authorised and identified by the trade unions concerned; and to organise separately those who wish to demonstrate in support; and for connected purposes.
This Bill simply seeks to enact the desires of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, whose words I have just quoted in the Long Title, and who said on 23rd June when answering Questions:
I hope…that legitimate pickets, properly identified, can be allowed to operate. Those who wish to demonstrate in support of the workers who have been dismissed at this factory should be separately organised and clearly distinguished from the pickets. That would make the job of the police very much easier in trying to sort out this dispute.
The right hon. Gentleman said a little later:
I therefore believe that it is necessary to separate legitimate and authorised pickets from those who latch on to it. That seems to me the best way of doing it.
He continued:
I have suggested…to limit the number of pickets in this matter, that they should agree who they should be, that they should be easily identified and that others should stay away or demonstrate in a different way."—[Official Report, 23rd June 1977; Vol. 933, c. 1735–37.]
As I simply seek to enact those views expressed by the Prime Minister, this Bill is both short and non-controversial. I propose a short Bill to give effect to the suggestion that those who wish to picket should inform the police as to the names of the limited number of representatives who will form the picket lines. It may be that 10 or 12 representatives at each factory entrance or plant would be sufficient. Some believe that it could be based on a percentage of the work force. That would be a good point to be raised in the Committee stage of the Bill, which we shall shortly reach. I leave to the verdict of that Committee which way is chosen. A further clause will seek to implement the Prime Minister's desires, requiring the legitimate pickets to wear arm bands so that they may be identified.
The whole House agreed with the Prime Minister that the ugly scenes at the

Grunwick laboratories in the summer revolted the nation. The violent mobs were something from which he rightly wished to dissociate himself politically. I hope that he is not thinking of running away from his laudable intentions now that the dispute is off the boil.
I believe that this is a non-controversial matter because we have the Prime Minister on record as being in favour of these provisions. We know that the police would welcome a move of this sort, because it would enable them to organise demonstrations separately from picketing and would allow the police to keep a better control of public order, which it is its duty to do.
Both the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Defence should welcome this measure It would have saved them having to go to Grunwick to do penance with the pickets in order to sustain their credibility in the eyes of the unions. It would have avoided their having to come out of their Elysian clouds in order to regain the common touch. I am sure that they did not enjoy the afternoon down there. and it would leave them free not to go on another occasion because they would be classed among those who latch on to these things.
I wish also to refer in this context to the activities of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise). I sent her a note to say that I intended to refer to her in this matter. She had an unfortunate experience at Grunwick. Had this Bill then been enacted, it would have saved that hon. Lady the inconvenience of a trip to the police station.

Mr. Tom Litterick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should point out that the case to which the hon. Gentleman so frivolously and unfairly refers is sub judice. I think that you should warn him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): If that is the case. I know that the case will not be mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ridley: I would immediately withdraw those remarks if the case were sub judice. It is obviously a grave matter if it is being dealt with in the courts. I say to the hon. Lady only "It will never get better if you pick-it".
I call in aid for my Bill a speech made by Lord Birkenhead in the House on 30th March 1906 on the Trades Disputes Bill of that year. He said:
We are asked to permit 100 men to go round to the house of a man who wishes to exercise the common law right in this country to sell his labour where and when he chooses, and to 'advise' him or 'peacefully persuade' him not to work. If 'peaceful persuasion' is the real object, why are a hundred men required to do it? I know of no one who is more peaceful than the member for Merthyr (Mr. Keir Hardie), and I am sure that no man can be more persuasive….
If I were a man who was wishful to dispose of my labour as I chose, although the member for Merthyr might not persuade me to break a contract, still, if the hon. Member came with fifty other peaceful persuaders to the house where I and my wife live, I fear I should be much more likely to yield to persuasion than if the hon. Gentleman came by himself. We are told that another object of these well-attended deputations is that information may be given. Is it more convenient that information should be given by fifty men, than by one man? Even in this House it is recognised that, as a general principle, it is more convenient that one Member should address the House at one time.
That sems to be the kernel of the matter. Picketing is for peaceful persuasion. We must allow peaceful persuasion and the giving of information, but not permit the obvious motive of intimidation to supplant that of peaceful persuasion. Lord Birkenhead said:
Every honest man knows why trade unions insist on the right to a strong numerical picket. It is because they rely for their objects neither on peacefulness nor persuasion. Those whom they picket cannot be peacefully persuaded. They understand with great precision their own objects, and their own interests, and they are not in the least likely to be persuaded by the representatives of trade unions, with different objects and different interests. But, though arguments may never persuade them, numbers may easily intimidate them. And it is just because argument has failed, and intimidation has succeded, that the Labour Party insists upon its right to a picket unlimited in respect of numbers.
That is why mass picketing is not needed. If the Prime Minister came to the conclusion that mass picketing is not desirable in the interests of public order, I am sure that the whole House will want to pass this little Bill. If, by chance, the Prime Minister should not find himself able to be in my Lobby if there is a vote—and it may be that, as the Bill is so agreed, there will not be a vote—he will be guilty of using words to try to associate himself with a particular objective when

he thinks that it is popular for him to do so and chickening out when the time comes to implement those proposals by putting them in the form of legislation as I propose. If there is anyone who is prone to "latch on to it", it will be the Prime Minister if he does not vote with me.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. George Park: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has put forward a bubble and squeak case in endeavouring to get leave to present his Bill. I call it a bubble and squeak case because it is a rehash of arguments that have been put forward and rejected by the House before.
I am not suggesting that provisions which have remained substantially the same for more than 70 years are not due for review, but in his reference to Keir Hardie the hon. Gentleman should recall that the only change of note occurred in 1971 when the protection from picketing of a person in his home was removed.
I am trying to treat a serious subject in a serious way—in contrast to the way in which the hon. Gentleman approached it. I am sure that he is aware that the Secretary of State for Employment has stated his intention to the House of conducting negotiations with the parties primarily concerned to see whether he can arrive at some amendments or alterations to the law which will command general support. He is in the process of doing that.
The proposed reforms are open to a number of serious objections.

Mr. Ridley: Tell that to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Park: They are one-sided. They take no account of the difficulties faced by pickets and they do not deal with the question of communication with occupants of vehicles trying to get into premises that are being picketed. Bearing in mind the hon. Gentleman's concern for the police, he should recognise that his proposals would make their job more difficult by restricting their discretion in dealing with delicate situations. Nor do the proposals deal with new methods adopted by special police groups for dealing with mass picketing which, on occasions, have amounted to provocation.
The hon. Gentleman knows that several attempts have been made recently to reform the law, with no success. The Conservatives conducted a review during their last Administration and concluded that they could not put forward anything that would command general support. The hon. Gentleman's Bill may be an indication of a new and tougher line by the Conservative Party towards the trade union movement.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that in the original Employment Protection Bill there was a clause designed to clarify the law, but this did not find favour with the Opposition or with several of my hon. Friends. I also remind him, however, that there was a perfectly reasonable amendment dealing with the number of pickets and that he voted against it. There are no easy solutions.

The motion shows that the proposed Bill would be lopsided. It seeks only to restrict the activities of pickets, thereby hobbling the trade union movement, and it could, at the same time, have the effect of tying the hands of the Secretary of State in his consultations which are proceeding.

I submit that the Bill would be likely to exacerbate rather than to help resolve the problems which exist. For all these reasons, I suggest that leave to introduce the Bill should be refused.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 181.

Division No. 64]
AYES
[4.07 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fell, Anthony
Lloyd, Ian


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fisher, Sir Nigel
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Arnold Tom
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
McCrindle, Robert


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Macfarlane, Neil


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Forman, Nigel
MacGregor, John


Baker, Kenneth
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Banks, Robert
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Bell, Ronald
Fry, Peter
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Marten, Neil


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mates, Michael


Benyon, W.
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Mather, Carol


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Maude, Angus


Biffen, John
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mawby, Ray


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhart, Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Blaker, Peter
Goodhew, Victor
Mayhew, Patrick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodlad, Alastair
Meyer, sir Anthony


Bottomley, Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brittan, Leon
Gray, Hamish
Molyneaux, James


Brooke, Peter
Grieve, Percy
Monro, Hector


Brotherton, Michael
Griffiths, Eldon
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Buck, Antony
Grist, Ian
Morgan, Geraint


Budgen, Nick
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bulmer, Esmond
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Burden, F. A.
Hawkins, Paul
Neave, Airey


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hayhoe, Barney
Neubert, Michael


Carlisle, Mark
Higgins, Terence L.
Newton, Tony


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Holland, Philip
Nott, John


Channon, Paul
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, John (Harrow West)


Churchill, W. S.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, Richard (Workington)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Parkinson, Cecil


Clegg, Walter
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Cope, John
James, David
Penhaligon, David


Cormack, Patrick
Jessel, Toby
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Costain, A. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pink, R. Bonner


Critchley, Julian
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Crouch, David
Jopling, Michael
Prior, Rt Hon James


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kershaw, Anthony
Raison, Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kimball, Marcus
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Drayson, Burnaby
Knight, Mrs Jill
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lamont, Norman
Rhodes James, R.


Dykes, Hugh
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rifkind, Malcolm


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lawrence, Ivan
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lawson, Nigel
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Eyre, Reginald
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ross, William (Londonderry)




Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Stanley, John
Wall, Patrick


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Walters, Dennis


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Warren, Kenneth


Scott, Nicholas
Stokes, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Stradling Thomas, J.
Wells, John


Shepherd, Colin
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Silvester, Fred
Tebbit, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Sims, Roger
Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Younger, Hon George


Spence, John
Trotter, Neville



Sproat, Iain
Vaughan, Dr Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Stainton, Keith
Wakeham, John
Mr. Nicholas Ridley and


Stanbrook, Ivor
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Mr. Ian Gow.




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Anderson, Donald
Golding, John
Pardoe, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Graham, Ted
Park, George


Armstrong, Ernest
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Parry, Robert


Ashley, Jack
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pavitt, Laurie


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Hardy. Peter
Radice, Giles


Atkinson, Norman
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Reid, George


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bates, Alf
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Hooley, Frank
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bidwell, Sydney
Huckfield, Les
Roderick, Caerwyn


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hunter, Adam
Rooker, J. W.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Irving. Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Sever, John


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Bradley, Tom
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Sillars, James


Buchan, Norman
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Silverman, Julius


Buchanan, Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Skinner, Dennis


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Judd, Frank
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Kaufman, Gerald
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Campbell, Ian
Kerr, Russell
Snape, Peter


Canavan, Dennis
Kinnock, Neil
Spearing, Nigel


Cant, R. B.
Lamborn, Harry
Spriggs, Leslie


Carmichael, Neil
Lamond, James
Stallard, A. W.


Castle, Rt Hop Barbara
Lee, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Clemitson, Ivor
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Strang, Gavin


Cohen, Stanley
Lipton, Marcus
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Con[...]an, Bernard
Litterick, Tom
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Corbett, Robin
McCartney, Hugh
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Cowans, Harry
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
McElhone, Frank
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Tierney, Sydney


Dalyell, Tam
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Tinn, James


Davidson. Arthur
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Torney, Tom


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
McNamara, Kevin
Urwin, T. W.


Davies, Clinton (Hackney C)
Madden, Max
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Deakins. Eric
Magee, Bryan
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Watkins, David


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Watkinson, John


Dempsey, James
Maynard, Miss Joan
Weetch, Ken


Dormand, J. D.
Meacher, Michael
Weitzman, David


Edge, Geoff
Mendelson, John
White, James (Pollok)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mikardo, Ian
Whitlock, William


English, Michael
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wigley, Dafydd


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mitchell, Austin
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Faulds, Andrew
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Woodall, Alec


Flannery, Martin
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Woof, Robert


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Newens, Stanley
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Noble, Mike
Young, David (Bolton E)


Forrester, John
Ogden, Eric



Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
O'Halloran, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Orbach, Maurice
Mr. Eddie Loyden and


Garrett, W. E.(Wallsend)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Mr. Stan Thorne.


George, Bruce
Ovenden, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Who will prepare and bring in the Bill?

Mr. Ridley: The Prime Minister and myself, Sir.

Hon. Members: Oh.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nicholas Ridley.

PICKETING (REGISTRATION AND CONTROL)

Mr. Nicholas Ridley accordingly presented a Bill to give the Home Secretary power to restrict picketing to a limited number of persons, authorised and identified by the trade unions concerned; and to organise separately those who wish to demonstrate in support; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21st April and to be printed. [Bill 47.]

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND BILL

[10TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 17th January]

[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]

Schedule 10

MATTERS WITHIN LEGISLATIVE COMPE TENCE OF ASSEMBLY, AND WITHIN POWERS OF SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move, Amendment No. 467, in page 48, line 4, at end insert—

GROUP 1C (Energy)

Electricity. Coal. Gas. Oil exploration, development, production, transportation, depletion, safety and health. Research.'.

When the Government fought the General Election of 1974, there was advertising in the Press and there were references on television to the fact that a Scottish Assembly would mean a powerhouse Scotland. The object of the amendment is that energy industries operating in Scotland should come within the oversight of the Scottish Assembly and particularly, we hope, within the oversight of a Committee of the Assembly that will look at the energy sources and the energy industries in some detail.

The background to the amendment can best be explained by my quoting paragraphs 5 and 6 of a memorandum that has been produced by the Scottish Consumer Council, in Glasgow, dated December 1977. Paragraph 5, which is headed "Nationalised Industries", runs as follows:
We note that central control of nationalised industries, an essential part of the United Kingdom economy, rests with the United Kingdom Government under the Bill although the services provided by these industries are of critical importance to the Scottish consumer. Some direct and formal influence on the operation of the nationalised industries in Scotland is called for. The White Paper stated that 'there should be informal contact … on matters of joint interest' and that industries 'should include in their reports information on recent developments and future plans for Scotland'.

The Scottish Consumer Council goes on to say,
informal contacts are not enough. The Scottish consumer has a right to be consulted about future plans, not merely informed. We recommended in April 1976 that there should be an Assembly Committee specifically responsible for keeping under review the work of the nationalised fuel industries in Scotland.

The Council mentions that that is no longer possible under the Bill. It points out that Assembly Committees will be allowed to consider only devolved subjects and, therefore, that they may not be able to take more than a passing interest in the energy industries of Scotland.

The Council makes a recommendation that the energy industries or the nationalised industries in general should be a formal responsibility of the Scottish Assembly.

Further, in paragraph 6, the Scottish Consumer Council recommends
that appointments to the Scottish consultative and consumer councils of nationalised industries should be made by the Secretary of State on the recommendation of the Scottish Executive.

I think that that very fairly sets out the general proposition that nationalised industries in Scotland are extremely important. They are a sizeable part of the industrial and service activity within Scotland. I suggest that it is reasonable, as a general proposition, that the Scottish Assembly, which is to be directly elected and set up to consider matters of concern to the people of Scotland and things that will affect their daily lives, should be able to consider the energy industries.

Prior to this debate, some hon. Members have thought that the main object of my exposition relates to the oil industry. Certainly that is a part of my proposition. However, I think that it would be wrong to isolate the oil industry from the other energy industries which operate in Scotland.

The first of those other energy industries is electricity. The Government have recently decided to confirm that when the energy industry is reorganised, it will be reorganised in England and Wales and that the existing structure in Scotland will not be affected. Indeed, the existing structure of the electricity industry in Scotland is that there are two electricity boards, one serving the greater mass of the population in Central and Southern Scotland—the South of Scotland Elec-

tricity Board—and one serving the northern parts of the country, including my own constituency in Dundee and including the City of Aberdeen.

Both of these boards are separate by composition, but they exchange their membership and their chairmen. For a number of years now, they have been engaged in planning the electricity demand and facilities within Scotland. Indeed, there is quite a strong financial link, too, between the two bodies, although they are administratively separate. The common cord that they share is that they both come within the responsibility not of the Secretary of State for Energy but of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

How or why this has grown up is probably due to the formation of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, with its special social and industrial priorities written into the foundation statute, and because it is very natural and reasonable that this should occur.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is it not much simpler than that? Both of these boards were in existence before there was a separate Department of Energy.

Mr. Wilson: Indeed, that may well be so, but, if I recollect aright, there was a Ministry of Fuel and Power, and the electricity industry has had a rather fascinating background, both in Scotland and in England and Wales, in the way in which the municipal undertakings and others were gradually brought within the grid system.
This is a fascinating subject in itself, but I would be straying a little far into the historical background, and away from the amendment, if I did other than confirm and corroborate the fact that the electricity industry has been run in Scotland on a distinctive basis, under the influence and supervision of a Scottish Minister. It is reasonable, therefore, that charge of the two boards should pass to the Scottish Assembly.
At Scottish Question Time this afternoon, there was an interesting exchange about the electricity industry, the possibility of future power stations and how the failure of the advanced gas-cooled reactor for Hunterston might affect the future intentions of the electricity boards.


However, that, across the Floor of the House of Commons at Question Time, is not a sufficient way of taking care of industries which have thousands of employees and spend millions of pounds. It would be worthwhile, in parliamentary terms, for there to be some continuing supervision of those industries and the right to take evidence and to see that they operate within acceptable guidelines of public policy.
It could be argued that there was an occasion about 18 months ago, in connection with a small Bill which provided for subsidies for the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board in order for it to meet the costs of the supply of cheap electricity to the Invergordon smelter, when there was an opportunity to discuss the industry in greater detail.
Of course, that Invergordon programme, which affected the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and its consumers, was very closely tied to the AGR station at Hunterston, which had taken a long time to appear. But at that stage there was a £60 million deficit to be allowed for and there was the opportunity for the provision of further public finance to support the political decision which had been taken years ago to establish the smelter. Let us not go into the arguments—we did that during the passage of the Bill—but there is a great deal of money at stake.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Jim Craigen: rose—

Mr. Norman Buchan: rose—

Mr. Wilson: I give way to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen).

Mr. Craigen: Will the hon. Gentleman remind me whether the SNP supported that measure when it was debated in the Scottish Grand Committee?

Mr. Wilson: That is so. We did not oppose the Bill. I may be able to deal with the point that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) wanted to raise when I say that I put down an amendment questioning the borrowing powers of the Bill, to allow a debate to

take place. The amendment did not go to a vote but was withdrawn.

Mr. Buchan: May I refresh the hon. Gentleman's memory? Did not he move an amendment to cut back the amount of money that would be going for these developments that he apparently welcomes so much?'

Mr. Wilson: As I said, I put down an amendment to allow a debate. As the hon. Gentleman should know with his parliamentary experience, that is how one can achieve the object of debating the broad background of the subject of a Bill. It was a very good debate, and I found the hon. Gentleman's contribution interesting, even if I did not agree with all of it. I should be delighted to continue that debate at some time in the future, but I think that I should now deal with the proposal for the electricity industry.
There is a site at Torness with planning permission for the establishment of an SGHW reactor. The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board—although we heard from the Minister of State this afternoon that it has produced no proposals to him—is engaged in environmental consultations with the folk in the district about the possibility of a pumped storage station at Craigroyston.
The whole question of reactor choice and the cost of electricity should be under parliamentary scrutiny. Perhaps it should not be detailed scrutiny, as these are nationalised industries, but certainly if Westminster has found it necessary to establish a Committee to look into the nationalised industries—the extent of the Committee's powers is a slightly sensitive subject at present—it is desirable that there should be time to do the same for the important electricity industry in Scotland. That can be only through the Scottish Assembly because, whether we agree with the Bill or not, we all recognise that time for that sort of scrutiny is not available here.
Another part of the Scottish industry that could be devolved to the Assembly is the coal industry, through the National Coal Board. That industry supplies a substantial part of its output—about 75 per cent., I think—to the South of Scotland Electricity Board. Therefore, the electricity industry and the coal industry


are inextricably bound together. The markets are the same.
It is true that for a while the Scottish coal industry had a very bad time, but other hon. Members have pointed out to me that some parts of the industry in England also suffered in the 1960s. We should not take the pessimistic view that was prevalent for a long time. In preparation for this debate I recently looked over some of the Press statements from the Department of Energy. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who has taken a strong interest in the industry and is probably the only surviving Energy Minister from the beginning of this Parliament, said in a speech to the Scottish area summer school of the National Coal Board and the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shot-firers on 6th May 1977 that the reserves which had been found which were better than the existing reserves, which were easier to work, were quite substantial. He said:
One of the most promising finds has been the 50 million tons of economically recoverable reserves at Musselburgh … there is enough coal there to keep a 2-million-ton-a-year pit going well into the next century. A further 1,000 million tons of technically workable coal have been proven in new Scottish fields, adding to the very substantial reserves already known. In all, Scotland has about a quarter of the United Kingdom's workable coal.
The Minister also said that some development work had been taking place. Only this week we had word that the National Coal Board intends to go ahead with the Castlehill development.
Since the hon. Gentleman made that speech about 120 million tons of coal have been discovered in the South Lanark area. Therefore, we should not be too defeatist about the future of the Scottish coal industry, particularly if we look at the listed pithead price table in the EEC Commission's document General Coal Market Situation 1975 and Forecasts for 1976, which shows that in four types of coal taken over nine EEC areas Scotland's competitiveness was exceeded in "long flame nuts 1" by only South Wales and North Yorkshire; in "long flame nuts 5" by only North Yorkshire; in coking coal by only North Yorkshire; and in coke by only Belgium and North Yorkshire.
Therefore, we see that in a European context the Scottish coal industry has a

part to play. It is a pity that when entry into the EEC was negotiated and renegotiated no attempt was made, apparently, to provide for markets for coal within the EEC. It is a pity not only for Scotland but for England, because these are markets that I am sure both the NCB and the NUM would be glad to have.
The coal industry, being highly labour-intensive, employs many people in Scotland. Because of that, and because it is inextricably bound up with the electricity industry, it should go to the Assembly, so that when the Assembly considers the Scottish energy industry it will be able to consider these two aspects and decide what may be the best policy for Scotland and monitor what the Scottish Executive has been thinking.
The third area that could be devolved to the Assembly under the energy classification is gas. We still have a Scottish gas organisation. At least, that is the body of which I make regular payments, although it is part of the British Gas Corporation. Until about six years ago there was a separate Scottish Gas Board. I am not suggesting that the old Scottish Gas Board was among the most efficient of the nationalised industries.
For a while during my previous occupation as a solicitor the board was frequently in trouble in the sheriff's court because of its accounting procedure and its bills to consumers. I often used to say on public platforms that one of the reasons I wished we could have self-government was to do something about the Board. However, the Government of the day decided to do something about it and converted it into a region of the British Gas Corporation. In so far as it was easy to amalgamate it with the Corporation, there would be little difficulty in disengagement. All the main services are still at Granton, Edinburgh.
It is proper that at this stage I should dispel the myth that is heard from time to time that Scotland depends on English gas. The plain truth is that supplies of gas from the English gas fields have only recently been coming to Scotland. It is about two years ago now that the conversion process took place in Dundee, and I recollect that extremely well because I was overwhelmed with a great number of constituency problems at the time the conversion process took place. But we must not forget that there could be up


to five gas lines taking gas from the fields off the north coast of Scotland down to England.

Mr. Buchan: Is not the hon. Gentleman's position simply that, when England alone was offering gas, the Scottish National Party was very willing to scream that the gas was not coming quickly to Scotland, but that, now that we have gas and oil, the hon. Gentleman says that we want to keep it from the United Kingdom? What a dishonourable position he places us Scots in.

Mr. Wilson: The only dishonourable position is the attitude of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West. The gas was supplied at a price. It had to be paid for. It took a long time for the gas mains to reach Scotland, and we had to pay for town gas at a higher price during the time that the gas fields served the English Midlands and worked their way up through to Scotland. There were reasons for it, of course. But the point is that there will be very substantial supplies of gas available, and there is no reason why—talking in terms of a devolved situation here and not the independent situation that I would prefer to see—the Scottish gas board and the British Gas Corporation should not be able to reach agreement. I am sure that they will.

Mr. Nick Budgen: The hon. Gentleman talks about price. I hope that he will deal with the price, because that is central to the argument about oil. I hope that he will say whether an independent Scotland would want to have a minimum selling price for oil, or whether he would want the remainder of the United Kingdom to play an important part in the OPEC proceedings, which are a very effective cartel for holding up the price.

Mr. Wilson: I can deal with that. When the various Bills came before Parliament—the Oil Taxation Bill and the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-Lines Bill—I did not depart from the philosophy which the Government and the official Opposition adopted. There is a world price for oil, and a secondary proposition, which was not necessarily canvassed at that time, is that if a country wishes to affect its internal distribution of costs, it relates it to the duties on refined

spirit—that is to say, if it wishes to reduce the price of petrol. The Americans do that. They have an internal price structure which causes all sorts of distortions. It is very complicated.

Mr. Neil Macfarlane: It is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman makes it sound.

Mr. Wilson: I was not suggesting that the American system was simple. It is not. But there is a world price for oil in economic terms and, if a country wishes to interfere with the price of energy, it can do it by virtue of taxation. It has been pointed out already that a large part of the economic price which is now being charged for North Sea oil—Scottish oil, as I prefer to call it—is going to the Government in the form of taxation. About 70 per cent. of the net value will be going to the Exchequer in taxation.
I am suggesting in relation to gas that there was a Scottish gas board. The gas board in Scotland deals with many thousands of consumers. The Scottish consumers' council has suggested that it would be desirable and advantageous that the Assembly should have not just consultation with the energy industry but actual oversight of it, bearing in mind the convention about the independence or quasi-independent position which nationalised industries occupy.
The fourth factor is, of course, oil. Here is a matter of very great concern to Scotland. In this amendment, we are now talking about the administration of the policies involved in exploration, development, transport, safety and health, depletion and the like. These are matters which affect many areas, especially on the east coast of Scotland, and it would be very important were these powers to be transferred to the Assembly.
The Secretary of State has a number of councils set up to advise him on the problems which may occur because of the greater exploration and development. These take in some of the devolved functions of planning, housing, schools, and industrial development to the extent that industrial development is devolved.
4.45 p.m.
Shortly after the second General Election in 1974, I recall that we dealt with the Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Bill. It was proposed that


there should be two yards set up at Hunterston and Portavady, and public money was spent. The Government relied upon estimates supplied by the oil industry, but many people, including SNP Members, pointed out that those estimates seemed to be inflated and that the estimates for platforms at that level, based on the number of platforms existing in Scotland, would not come to pass. That matter had to be taken up by the Public Accounts Committee only recently. But I think that it would be desirable were there to be an adequate supervision of the background of oil in Scotland. It is a matter of real interest and concern, especially this question of the depletion rate.

Mr. Craigen: The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer by profession. Would he care to comment on the difficulties that he foresees in getting an internationally agreed median line between Scotland and England as against the present accepted median line, which has largely come about as a result of administrative convenience and jurisdiction? This would be quite crucial to any accountability over the devolving or the separation of energy policy as between Scotland and England.

Mr. Wilson: I have always accepted that the median line which is stipulated in the Statutory Instrument is an adequate indication of the position. If there is any doubt about it, it can always go to arbitration. We have completed two sets of arbitrations recently. One related to the reserves in the Frigg gas field, shared between Norway and the United Kingdom. The other related to the sub-division of the areas in the English Channel. There is no difficulty about that. Even if one assumes that the first supposition is incorrect and that the 55·50N line is not applicable, there are only two very tiny fields of negligible production involved. Frankly, if we were talking in terms of an independent Scotland, the real value of the oil—

Mr. Buchan: What about Shetland?

Mr. Wilson: If the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West is concerned about Shetland, he need only study the decision about the Channel Islands and the Isles of Scilly. He will see that these matters are very complicated. But I am sure

that the hon. Member will find a suitable answer that will solve that problem.

Dr. M. S. Miller: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) calmly points out that if there are any disputes between England and Scotland over the median line they can go to arbitration. Does he accept that if his party came to power the thousands of intricate and inter-woven aspects between Scotland and England would also have to go to arbitration? There is not one aspect of the intercourse between England and Scotland that would not have to go to arbitration. Does he not think that that would be the signal for a law-lawyer's bonanza for years to come?

Mr. Wilson: I was planning to refer to the lawyers' bonanza when we deal with the question of scrutiny. I do not accept the argument of the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller). I was asked a simple question about the median line. I have attempted to reply but whether hon. Members accept that reply is another matter.

Mr. Craigen: I was not being awkward. When I prepared the report for the Western European Union just over a year ago the Foreign Office did not seem to recognise the median line between Scotland and England. The international adjudication to which reference has been made clearly will take time. We saw this in the dispute between the United Kingdom and France over the Channel Islands. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) would thrust Scotland headlong into uncertainty for a long time.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) has made two mistakes. First, the question of the median line between Scotland and England is de minimis. We are talking about 73,000 barrels a day which is a minuscule amount. Secondly, today's debate is about the oversight of energy policy which should go to the devolved Assembly. I am willing to develop this theme in relation to an independent, self-governing Scotland. I should be delighted to do that because it is bread and meat to me. However, under the Scotland Bill we must consider the Scottish Assembly.
I am attempting to indicate that there are certain aspects of nationalised industries and of matters that affect planning, housing and schools which are of concern to the people of Scotland and to consumers. They should be devolved, in addition to those other matters which the Government believe should be devolved.
I turn to the question of research. I have not said that nuclear research should be completely devolved. I take the view that nuclear research and energy research generally should be done on a European basis or on a wider, world basis. The costs of research are becoming so astronomical that this must be done on a wide basis. Although the contribution made by the Atomic Energy Authority and other bodies have been first class in technical terms, unfortunately this has not produced a product that is capable of being exported commercially. The last nuclear reactor to be exported from the United Kingdom was in 1959. Nevertheless, there is an interest in this matter and the Assembly should have some say in it.
I recently inspected the Lurgi process at Westfield, Fife, where I saw the British Gas Corporation in conjunction with the Energy Research and Development Administration testing American coals to see how best they could be gasified. We have an interest in renewable forms of energy because there are certain job possibilities involved in it.
These subjects should go to the Assembly. It is essential that decisions taken in these industries are monitored in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for the electricity industry but we have little opportunity to keep in touch with what the electricity chiefs are doing. We have little opportunity of investigating them or taking evidence as part of the process of open government. The Scottish Consumers Association has said that control over these industries should go to the Assembly. This is the opportunity to add them to the Bill.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I intervene briefly, but there are one or two points about the amendment to which I should like to draw the attention of

the Committee. The way in which the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) moved the amendment was intriguing. I was surprised by the quiet and apparently reasonable way in which he tried to slip his arguments past the Committee. He tried to hide the fact that this is a separatist amendment. Some of his hon. Friends have not been so disarming in their approach. They have been frank and said that their proposals would involve an extension of devolution into areas which the Government have regarded as being essential to retain as one undivided responsibility in order to preserve the economic unity of the United Kingdom.
One or two things have been in the SNP propaganda for some time which should be corrected. My hon. Friends from Scottish constituencies will have noted that the proposition that the Assembly should take over responsibility for oil, gas and electricity was put in a quiet way, unlike the manner in which the proposition has been promoted in the constituencies on hoardings and on the platforms. They will have noted that the SNP is running a bogus campaign on Scottish resources. It is making a blatant appeal to the electorate to divide these resources from the United Kingdom.
Those hon. Members who served on the Committee of the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill will remember the discussion on the so-called median line. There is no median line between Scotland and England. There is a line made under an order of the Continental Shelf Act but this is purely a jurisdictional line to indicate where the jurisdiction of Scottish courts stops and the jurisdiction of English courts begins. Its purpose is to deal with legal disputes. For example, when someone has an accident on a platform, the line decides to which court that person goes. There is no median line. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) performed a service to the Committee by pointing that out. He was absolutely right and the hon. Member for Dundee, East was wrong.
The heart of the hon. Member's case was disguised by his use of words such as "scrutiny", "control" and "consumer interest" but the purpose of the amendment is to transfer legislative and executive responsibility for these matters


to the Assembly. Frankly that would be a separatist step.
The United Kingdom is fortunate in its energy resources. By 1980 it will be self-sufficient in all forms of energy. We are already producing half the oil that we consume. By 1980 we shall be producing the equivalent of the amount of oil that we consume. We are already benefiting from the balance of payments advantages of that, and through the wise steps taken by the Government under the Oil Taxation Act and the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act, with the setting up of the British National Oil Corporation, they have secured for the public interest a large share of the profits which will derive from these industries.
The industries are flourishing. There is the oil industry in particular. It would be tragic to try to divide up our energy resources or to have competing energy policies within the United Kingdom. We have such marvellous energy resources of oil, gas and coal. Coal will be the enduring asset of this country. It will be available to us 300 years from now, when oil and gas are completely depleted.
There is also the nuclear power industry, in which units from Scotland play an important part. It makes a great deal of sense to keep together on energy policy and to maximise for the United Kingdom the advantages of our assets.

Mr. John Robertson: Does the Minister agree that the electricity side is already an administratively devolved matter?

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Smith: No. Electricity is a decentralised matter. In Scotland the industry is under the administrative control of the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is the only aspect of any energy industry which is. There is a big difference between decentralising and devolving the legislative and executive responsibilities. We propose that electricity would remain decentralised under the control of the Secretary of State, but that it would be a matter for which the British Government and the United Kingdom Parliament remained responsible. It would seem to us foolish to put aside one section of an energy industry and treat it separately from the other parts of that industry.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East seemed to imply that there was some unfairness in the fact that natural gas distribution reached Scotland a little later than some other parts of the United Kingdom. There is a simple geographic explanation for that. All of the offshore gas which enters this country comes from the southern basin gasfields off the Norfolk coast, and 95 per cent. of all the gas used in the United Kingdom, and 90 per cent. of the gas used in Scotland, comes from the southern basin gasfields. There is no difference in the price charged when it is landed, although there are variations in tariffs throughout the United Kingdom. That is to do with other considerations than the basic price which is secured by monopoly purchasing by the British Gas Corporation under powers provided by a previous Conservative Government.
The United Kingdom's gas resources are tremendously important. Gas will come in from the northern North Sea. Imaginative steps are being taken to maximise the amount of gas which can be recovered from that area and landed on the Scottish mainland and in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). But it would make sense to treat northern North Sea gas the same as we have treated southern basin gas, which is to regard it as an asset for the whole of the United Kingdom.
I know of no one active in the coal industry in Scotland—and I represent a mining constituency—on the management side and emphatically not on the trade union side who wishes to see the responsibilities of the National Coal Board for the mining industry divided in any way. The president of the Scottish area of the NUM issued a scathing attack on the lack of interest of the SNP in the Scottish coal mining industry over its difficult years. The Government have done a great deal to secure the future of that industry in Scotland and I pay tribute to the activities of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who has worked extremely hard to protect the interests of the mining industry in both Scotland and the United Kingdom. I can think of the coal-burn scheme, which gives tremendous support to the Scottish mining industry.
It would make no sense to be beguiled by the talk of the hon. Member for Dundee, East of "oversight" and "scrutiny". The amendment proposes a separatist policy towards the energy industries of the United Kingdom as between Scotland and England. That could not be done practically, and there is no economic sense in doing it. Part of the heart and structure of our proposals is that matters which affect the Scottish people directly should come within the sphere of the Scottish Assembly, but that we shall not devolve matters which impinge upon the economic unity of the United Kingdom. That is one of the most important objectives that we can sustain.
The amendment is phased in beguiling terms. I must point out to the hon. Members who have not experienced the amazing differences between the way in which propaganda on this subject is presented in the House of Commons, where it is subject to criticism and refutation, and the way in which it is crudely exploited in Scotland on the hoardings, that it would be dangerous for the Committee to accept the amendment. I warn the Committee about the way in which the amendment was presented and I invite it to reject it wholeheartedly as being totally inconsistent with devolution and the unity of the United Kingdom.

Mr. J. Grimond: I do not want to raise again the question of the ownership of North Sea oil and gas; the subject has been constantly debated. If, however, we were to go in for the academic exercise of drawing lines in the North Sea it would be as well to bear in mind that that is a highly complicated business and that at the end of the day my constituency might come off rather well. There are real and immediate problems associated with oil.
The Minister of State touched on the question of gas and the desirability of giving it the same treatment all over Britain. I hope, however, that my constituency will gain some advantages from the gas taken off at Flotta and Sullom Voe for the generation of electricity there. That would seem a reasonable hope for Orkney and Shetland. The idea has been discussed with the local authorities and I hope that it will come about.
It is clear that oil is not a devolved subject. It remains the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government and Parliament, and that covers
exploration, development, production. transportation
as mentioned in the amendment. There are, however, related activities consequent on the landing of oil. As the Minister knows, the handling of these has aroused some concern in at least one of my local authorities and among some of my constituents. In outline they are afraid that although oil in general remains the responsibility of the United Kingdom, some aspects of planning concerned with the landing and handling of oil at the terminal might come under the Scottish Assembly. They fear that some of the activities of Flotta and Sullom Voe might come within that sphere. Sullom Voe will be a very large area of activity, and all sorts of things might go on there.
Oil has involved Shetland in harbour works and in the setting up of harbour authorities, airstrips, and so on. The same, to a lesser degree, will be true of Flotta, in Orkney. Oil is by no means an unmixed blessing. It lays great demands upon the smaller authorities. It creates high wages for some people and high costs for everyone, and it creates problems of various sorts. I some times wonder whether, in the unlikely event of Scotland becoming independent, and if Scotland kept hold of all the oil that is claimed, the Scottish currency would become so strong that the rest of Scotland's exporting industries would be in some difficulty.
My local authorities, in conjunction with both Conservative and Labour Governments, have made a fairly good attempt at solving the difficulties that oil brings. I speak of the arrangements made for dealing with local Bills and the arrangements that the oil companies have made which have been carried through with considerable effort by many people. Those arrangements are fairly satisfactory and they enable us to meet the problems associated with oil as well as can be reasonably expected for the foreseeable future.
We do not want those arrangements upset, which is why we would oppose any interference—if that is the right word—by the Assembly in oil matters. I am adopting not an anti-Edinburgh attitude


but an attitude based upon the fact that after great difficulty we have secured these arrangements and that to have them all thrown into the melting pot once more would be disastrous. A lot of this has been done over half of the country. As the Minister said, we shall gain enormously from this great asset—oil—if it is rightly used.
There is provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State to step in on planning matters if the interests of the United Kingdom demand it. Therefore, if it appeared that interests throughout the United Kingdom demanded his intervention in planning matters concerned with the development of oil—I am glad to see that the Minister agrees—he could take action.
It is difficult to forecast the future. There are all sorts of estimates of forecasts. No one knows whether the oil will last for 20 or 50 years. No one knows what amount of oil will be obtained or what new fields will be discovered. No one knows what new pipelines will be laid. No one knows where petro-chemical industries will start up. The whole matter is in a state of flux.
In Orkney and Shetland matters are now on a fairly reasonable keel. If it were apparent that the Assembly, going outwith its powers, were interfering with future planning matters, the Secretary of State could intervene.
There are many activities which do not strictly fall within the ambit of the handling of oil. There are, for instance, roads and airstrips to be built. There is to be a big airstrip at Scatsta in the Shetlands. That will impose financial and managerial burdens on local authorities. We cannot make a special exception of roads and such like, but I hope that the Government have those matters very much in mind. There are also important fringe matters concerned with oil production.
We should make sure that any arrangements to assist in dealing with dislocation caused to industry by oil production—the need for new roads, dislocation of land use, and so forth—are met to some extent from oil revenues. We are anxious that such funds should be safeguarded.
The Minister referred to the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act. I served on the Committee. We had discussions on problems connected with landfall, the

carrying of oil over land, and so forth. All those matters may become acute.
Oil is not a devolved subject. I see that I have the Minister's agreement. The ultimate decisions on planning, if the United Kingdom is involved should remain at Westminster.
Finally, the arrangements, some of which are very complicated, made by local authorities should not be affected by devolution and should be protected by the powers reserved to the Westminster Parliament.

Mr. Buchan: As chairman of the Scottish Labour Group, I should like to say how many of us miss the presence of my late hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small). He has enlivened our proceedings, been a good friend to many, and was honoured and respected by all. There are few men of whom it can be said "He had no enemies", but that was abundantly true of Willie Small. If lie were here, he would probably describe the speech by the hon. Member for Dundee. East (Mr. Wilson) as a "Panglossian fantasy".
It is, indeed, a Panglossian fantasy, to assume that we shall have the best of all possible worlds. The problem with the thesis continually put forward by the SNP is that it always assumes potentially good results and does not look at the reaction and the counter-effects.
The SNP does not say that if we devolve powers from the centre of decision making to Edinburgh, the powers at the centre of decision making will be lessened. Therefore, it sounds reasonable to say that more power should be given to the Scottish people to deal with coal for example. In practice, less power would be given to the Scottish people to deal with coal, for all the reasons that Scottish coalminers know, but which perhaps the laymen of Scotland do not know.
We cannot always retain full powers at the heart of decision making when we have devolved some of those powers elsewhere. I am sure that Willie Small would have seen this dream world of the SNP as a typical Panglossian fantasy.
I want to take up the reasonable tone of the hon. Member for Dundee, East. I find that the irrationality of the proposals is always in direct ratio to the


reasonableness of the approach. The hon. Gentleman knows that the amendment is dishonest. It is dishonest in its formulation and in the apparent reasonableness with which he presented it.
5.15 p.m.
It is not a question of having more consumer influence on industries in Scotland. There are ways and means by which the consumer interests of Scotland can be brought to bear in any of the areas mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—electricity, gas and coal. The hon. Gentleman knows that there will be consultation on this matter, as on many others, between the Assembly and the House of Commons if devolution takes place.
The hon. Gentleman seeks to extend into this sphere in the same way as the amendments to which it was linked, on financial powers, including currency, sought to give economic power to Scotland. But economic power in Scotland alone means no economic power for us where decision making is done in the United Kingdom. That is the fallacy of the argument.
The truth is that in such a highly integrated economy—integrated not only north and south of the border, but with whole sectors of industry dependent one upon the other—this amendment, if successful, would remove from us the power to do that which we would seek to do in our own areas.
There is another great fallacy. Willie Small would have referred to the theological cargo cult. The cargo cult swept through the South Sea islands. There was the dream that in a few years or tomorrow, a mysterious boat would come from the clouds or from the seas, carrying cargo. People stopped work, ceased to till the land, and waited for the cargo to arrive. The SNP, too, suffer from a cargo cult phenomenon.

Dr. M. S. Miller: "A cargo kilt".

Mr. Buchan: A cargo kilt. The SNP believes that, with the coming of the oil, all problems will be solved. But not all problems will be solved.
I remember how the forthcoming publication of a book called "1980" was hailed in advance until that collection of

essays was published. There has been very little support for that book since from the SNP because that book, written largely by sympathisers, blew a hole in their economic pretensions, particularly the solution coming from oil.
At one time the SNP said that oil would create a strong currency in Scotland. At another time, in different circles, it said that it would prefer parity with England. On the whole, the SNP argues that it will give a strong pound. The hon. Gentleman and other SNP Members have said that the Scottish pound would be worth £1·50 compared with the English pound. At the same time, they have argued for devaluation of the green pound. That would make it more difficult for our livestock producers to sell in England and Wales and prevent export, and it would hammer the consumer. The SNP is the only party in history to have succeeded in clobbering both the consumer and the farmer at the same time.
The disarming approach of the hon. Member for Dundee, East has been referred to before. When he saw the problem arising in Committee a year and a half ago, he tried to prevent himself from running into the trap. I say to him quite firmly that he was tabling an amendment not to discuss but to attack the expenditure of the electricity boards. The amendment was specifically to reduce the amount of moneys available.
I should like to recall the time at which the hon. Gentleman did that. This is why I know that it was an attacking, not a probing, amendment. We were fighting to get extra expenditure and to persuade the Government to bring forward the order for the Drax B power station.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Scotland produces about 11½ per cent. of the generating capacity of the United Kingdom? My amendment related to the Scottish situation and was in no way connected with Drax B. I should be interested to know whether, in view of the over-capacity which was then and is now produced in Scotland, the hon. Gentleman wants to go ahead with another power station in Scotland?

Mr. Buchan: I am never sure whether the SNP is terribly cunning or incredibly stupid.

Mr. Iain Sproat: Both.

Mr. Buchan: Both. At that time, the hon. Member for Dundee, East was seeking to attack expenditure by the electricity industry when there was a campaign in full swing to persuade the Government to spend more money on the heavy electrical engineering industry and to bring forward the decision on Drax B. We were concerned at that time with the need not only of a power station at Drax but of securing 5,000 jobs for the Babcock and Wilcox factory in Scotland. That is why I am not sure whether members of the SNP are terribly cunning or incredibly stupid. I suggest that was a stupid thing to do. But the hon. Gentleman did it in the seclusion of the Committee.
In Renfrewshire the SNP was pretending—I say "pretending" because the two policies were contradictory—to lead a campaign, which included a petition, in favour of Drax B. At the same time, the hon. Member for Dundee, East was moving an amendment in Committee to cut back on expenditure in the industry.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if I had forced the amendment to a vote and it had been carried and the expenditure available to the electricity boards had been cut, it would have had no effect on Drax B, which was within another electricity generating area?

Mr. Buchan: The first point brings out the cunning and stupidity again. Fortunately, the rest of the members of the Committee were not stupid. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman was sufficiently cunning to withdraw the amendment after I had drawn this matter to his attention.
I turn now to another aspect. What kind of position would I, the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) and the workers involved in Drax B be in if, at the same time as we were campaigning for expenditure to assist us to save our industry in Scotland, the hon. Member for Dundee, East was seeking to cut back on Scottish expenditure? How could we say "Spend more in England and Wales and we will cut back and economise in Scotland" when the beneficiary was to be Scotland? It was a disgraceful, even an immoral,

situation, and the hon. Gentleman should face it.
I should like to draw yet another lesson from Drax B.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is daft.

Mr. Buchan: I think the hon. Member for Dundee, East said that I was daft. However, I am used to the odd low-key hysteria that we get from the SNP.
As I said, I should like to draw yet another lesson from Drax B. This is a fundamental lesson. I do not refer to the immorality of the behaviour of the SNP. There is a more profound lesson to be drawn from Drax B.
The Babcock and Wilcox factory in Scotland is one of the only two factories in the United Kingdom which make boilers for power stations. In the event of the SNP succeeding and there being an independent and separate Scotland, any Scottish Minister—especially if it were the hon. Member for Dundee, East —would have to ensure that an order from a nationalised industry went to a Scottish factory. Therefore, the order for boilers would go to Backcock and Wilcox. However, by the same token, given a separate and independent England, any English Minister would have to ensure that an order for boilers for an English power station went to the English factory. The only difference would be that the English factory would fulfill demands from a population 10 times larger than that of Scotland. Therefore, Scotland's potential would be reduced to one-tenth of its present potential.
In such circumstances, Babcock and Wilcox could not possibly survive, because basically it has a single customer. We know that the company makes exports, but basically it has a single customer—the nationalised Central Electricity Generating Board.
Therefore, what the SNP is seeking in its demand for independence is, among other things, the destruction of factories such as Babcock and Wilcox. SNP supporters fail to understand that, by having economic separation and removing Scotland's influence from the centre of basic decision-making, they are harming Scotland.
Yesterday it was argued that the SNP policy on oil and economic matters was


too good. It was suggested that the Scots were being selfish in wanting all the oil revenue. But that view was contradicted by others who said that the SNP policy was bad and that Scotland would suffer. There is no dichotomy. The process of action and reaction is the same. To the extent that the Scots—not the Scots; the SNP—demand that all oil resources should be for Scotland, a reaction is set up which prevents the full benefits coming to Scotland. In other words, after 15 or perhaps 20 years of the benefits from oil, Scotland will find that it no longer has the benefit of membership of the United Kingdom.
The SNP cannot have it both ways. For example, English gas comes to Scotland. The SNP has complained about its cost. However, I should point out that the cost in Scotland is the same as in England, despite the cost of getting it to Scotland. Now that Scottish gas is coming in the SNP says that it is Scotland's gas. Scotland cannot expect the benefits to continue to flow when that apparent advantage disappears. This is a matter of morality and of intelligence. I hope that the nationalists will face that situation.
Another example is coal. Oil is not merely a finite resource but a severely limited finite resource. After 10 or 15 years the rundown will begin, whatever happens. However, we know that coal will last for hundreds of years. It is true that there have been finds in Scotland. It is also true that coal production in Scotland is more expensive than in England or in Wales. The National Coal Board has quite rightly borne the additional cost of the Scottish coalmining industry. That is no disgrace to the men involved. It is a geographical and economic factor. It is right that the United Kingdom should bear the additional cost of coal production in Scotland compared with production in England. Not one English miner has demanded the bringing in of all the coal resources of England for England only and the cutting off of Scotland. As a Scot I find it shameful, when the position is reversed in relation to oil, that that demand should be made. It is stupid as well as immoral when the demand is made in respect of coal.
5.30 p.m.
My third point concerns Shetland. It may be true, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, that this Bill is an academic exercise. We are not, however, involved in an academic exercise when seeking to understand the motivation and behaviour of the SNP. Shetland has the bulk of the oil deposits. The people there have said that they do not want to hog this oil. Unlike the SNP, they do not claim the oil as theirs. On the contrary, they say that the oil revenues should be used in the interests of all the people of the United Kingdom as of right. I wish that we could get the same degree of generosity from the SNP.
The SNP said that it would give as much autonomy to the Shetland Isles as they wished to have. That was its policy. However, when oil was discovered, the SNP changed its tune. Sometimes it is a rather nasty one. It did not change its tune in Orkney and Shetland. The SNP candidate in Orkney and Shetland never referred to "Scottish oil" but referred to "North Sea oil." The tune is being changed in the rest of Scotland.
Despite the background of an SNP conference decision and the firm commitment to try to bribe the Shetland people by an offer of full autonomy, what did the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) have to say? He said that it was doubtful whether Shetland would get any of the oil and that it would certainly not get the bulk of it because international law would prevent that. The islands having been offered full autonomy, oil is discovered. The SNP then says that it will go to international law, if necessary, to deprive the islands of those resources. Even British imperialism at its worst never agreed to give an area full autonomy and then proceeded to take away its resources. We hear talk of Unionist imperialism—this is Unionist imperialism with a vengeance.
I reject these amendments and the motivation behind them. I do not know what the conclusion of these debates will be. I hope that one result will be that we shall be able to confront the SNP with its own dishonesty, and, perhaps, encourage it to use the same reasonableness north of the border as it does in this


House, so that occasionally we may hear the SNP speaking with one voice instead of with seven.
All parties have internal disagreements. When I speak in public against public expenditure cuts, I say "This is my view." When I speak in my constituency I do not say that the Labour Government are opposed to public expenditure cuts. I say "My Government are wrong." I disagree openly. What the SNP does is to go from area to area and say "This is SNP policy" according to the needs of the area. We had a prime example during the last election, concerning the proposed oil development at West Dunbartonshire. The SNP candidate there campaigned against the development on the grounds that the SNP was opposed to it. At the same time, across the river in my area, the SNP took half-page advertisements in the Greenock Telegraph which stated that the SNP was in favour of the development. These people shame Scotland with its great hard-headed tradition of democratic intellect.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I hope that we can make speedy progress with this debate, which has followed the pattern of some of our other economic debates. There are many other subjects relating to devolved matters which we ought to discuss. I welcome the early intervention of the Minister. The arguments on this amendment are fairly fundamental and straightforward. Having listened to the speech of the Minister and that by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), I want to underline one or two points.
It is right that there should be a debate on energy matters, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) for giving us this opportunity. The issue has only been touched on in other economic debates. When we talk of energy we are talking about natural resources, a factor which brings a new dimension to our debates. Oil is a non-renewable resource. This is true of all our energy sources which are based on fossil fuels. This factor shapes my attitude towards the amendment. Resources such as the land and the sea can be used to regenerate that which we need from them. This is not so with energy resources such as gas, coal and oil. These resources

are not man-made but rather they are God-placed.
The fact that such resources are God-placed serves to underline the great interdependence that there is in handling such energy resources. Although we are moving into a period of self-sufficiency in energy, this will be for only a finite period. We kid ourselves if we think that, because of this so-called bonanza in oil—on which so much of the SNP philosophy is based—we need not look ahead beyond this period of self-sufficiency. We must realise that as part of Europe, and, within Europe, as part of the world, we are dealing with a non-renewable resource. This is what makes interdependence so important.
Interdependence is equally important when it comes to nuclear energy. This point was illustrated by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West, who spoke of the nuclear generator manufacturing industry. In a totally independent Scotland it would be impossible to support such an industry. We would have to co-operate with other countries, just as Great Britain has to co-operate. Indeed it is questionable whether Great Britain herself is large enough in this context. We may be able to contribute and add to the technology, but we cannot do it on our own. To suggest that we could do so makes no sense in the modern world.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The hon. Gentleman will accept that I indicated that nuclear technology ought to be done on a much wider basis than at present. I believe that the Cabinet is now considering the importation of American technology as part of the next stage of the nuclear programme in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I accept that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged the situation, but I return to the question why we should divide what we have already when such full co-operation is needed in the technology. When we consider our resources of non-renewable fuels, it is clear that Scotland in 20 or 30 years' time may have to look to oil coming from other parts of the United Kingdom. Despite the starry picture painted of our coal resources, it is also likely that Scotland will become dependent on coal from, say, Yorkshire. I am particularly conscious


of this aspect of the energy argument because under my farm passes a very large pipeline through which is pumped all the gas coming from England to Scotland. The whole situation demonstrates how integrated we are in this country.
Norway is often called in aid as a country which seems to have made a particular success, or is supposed to have done, of the development of its oil resources. It may be that in some respects it has done better than we have. For example, I think that the Norwegians may have been more aware of some of the depletion problems and have taken quicker action. But I have talked to many people in the oil industry and I find that anyone who thinks that the development of oil in Norway has been a rose-covered path is quite wrong.
The Norwegians have had to face problems of the environment, of the depletion rate, of revenue, and the rest, just as we have. It has been no easy time for Norway. The mere fact of Norway's being a small nation on its own has not made any easier the solution of the great problems of oil development. It has certainly not made it any easier than in other countries. The Norwegians may have tackled the problems in a different way, but it has not been any easier or better for them.

Dr. M. S. Miller: The Scottish National Party is always making a big thing about comparisons with Norway and how wonderful it would be if we were like Norway. The SNP lauds the fact that Norway separated from Sweden about 70 years ago, and claims it as the epitome of success. But does not the hon. Gentleman agree that if Norway had remained with Sweden its standard of living would be higher? The Swedish standard of living is higher than that of Norway.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. That example well demonstrates that a small nation on its own could well be better off in a different situation and that it does not necessarily do best when it is on its own. It illustrates my point that being on one's own does not necessarily mean that one solves all one's oil problems, for example. For that reason alone, the amendment is unsound.
5.45 p.m.
Given that energy should remain the responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament, and given the interdependence that we have in relation to energy resources in the United Kingdom, following the establishment of the Assembly there will be more time for those representing Scotland in this House to deal with such matters. That is one of the reasons why I support devolution.
Members from Scotland have taken up a disproportionate amount of time in dealing with matters which are now to be devolved. I myself have been so busy dealing with them that I have often, regretfully, not been able to participate in discussion and action on wider issues in Parliament. We shall have much more opportunity to deal with matters that are being retained, such as energy. We shall have more time to bring a Scottish voice and influence into retained matters in this Parliament, such as energy resources and use.

Dr. M. S. Miller: If I had no other reason but to pay tribute to Willie Small, I would enter this debate. I am sure that the whole House of Commons will miss our late colleague, with his gems of classical and medical wisdom, and his puckish kind of Glasgow humour. I feel that the House is less of a mixture now that Willie Small has gone. I would like to record my appreciation of someone who was a kind and good man, a man who said no evil about anyone and about whom no evil was spoken.
We have a whole list of items in this group of amendments, all of them on matters in respect of which there is already a considerable degree of control in Scotland itself. That fact leads me to believe that the reason for putting forward the amendments has nothing to do with the desire to give more power or authority to the Scottish people through the Assembly, but rather to insist and to put the imprimatur of the SNP on its blueprint in the House of Commons for the separation of Scotland from England.
The whole argument of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is for separation. Comment has been made about the moderate way in which he approached the subject. Moderate though


the speech may have been in tone, its content was certainly anything but moderate.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: That is right.

Dr. Miller: The remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee, East bit deeply into the flesh of the SNP's desire for Scotland—complete separation. I apologise to my English colleagues for the shameless greed and selfishness of the Scottish nationalists in respect of anything that is going in the United Kingdom.
It is all right for English workers and English business men to develop their skills for the benefit of the United Kingdom as a whole and for Scotland in particular, but if Scotland is in the position possibly to reciprocate, the answer is "No. This belongs to us and no one else will get anything of it."
I am also astonished at the effrontery and the arrogant assumption of superiority on the part of the SNP. As a Scot I certainly would not claim that the Scottish people are superior to any other nation in the world. Yet, according to the Scottish nationalists, every Scottish person seems to be a superhuman individual. If we do not win the World Cup, it will perhaps be because the wicked English have clobbered or nobbled us before we get on to the field. I suspect that the selection committee has been got at, because the Scottish team finds itself in a group which might enable it to go further than perhaps it deserves.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Scottish captain, Mr. Bruce Rioch, when appearing on television, speaks with a Midlands accent?

Dr. Miller: So does my hon. Friend.

Mr. Dalyell: Wrong.

Dr. Miller: My hon. Friend speaks with an English accent.

Mr. Crawford: Not only Bruce Rioch speaks with an English accent; so does the national treasurer of the SNP, who happens to be English.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. All this is very enjoyable, but we are talking about Amendment No. 467.

Dr. Miller: I am sorry, Mr. Godman Irvine. I was on the wrong track for a moment.
What I am trying to point out is the way in which SNP representatives here are, in effect, saying to the Scottish people "Let us take over and we shall solve every one of the problems that you have. There is no question about that."
The hon. Member for Dundee, East made a petty and niggling kind of objection to the fact that it took a couple of years for North Sea gas to reach his constituency. It was as if all one had to do was wave a magic wand and all the benefits of modern technology would be somehow transplanted immediately to the place where the hon. Gentleman wanted them. I am constantly annoyed at the assumptions that SNP Members make about the way in which the Scottish people will benefit from independence because of their alleged superiority over everyone else.
My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) discussed the electricity position and indicated quite clearly that for some time to come—perhaps for all time—Scotland will be more dependent upon English coal than on Scottish coal. Certainly from an economic point of view that is the situation, because of the very great difficulty of Scottish pits. I believe that "18-inch seams" is the description that is used. There are more 18-inch seams in Scottish pits than anywhere in England. The difficulty of producing coal in Scotland is enormous. But as my hon. Friend pointed out, there is no objection from the English miner, arguing that the price of coal should be equalised throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.
Oil is another question. We have already a great degree of control in Scotland. The British National Oil Corporation is situated in Scotland. As for research, the National Engineering Laboratory—which also plays its part in oil problems—is situated in East Kilbride. It plays an important role as part of the British heritage in research.
What about the oil itself? It is interesting that the hon. Member for Dundee, East calmly assumes that the rest of the world will jump to the side of Scotland if a median line is drawn


and say "That is fine. There is no problem. This is yours and that belongs to England." But the book "Scotland 1980", referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West, is conveniently forgotten by the SNP. Although, as the Minister of State indicated, there is as yet no recognised marine median line, the book postulated that it could be done. One question is whether the coastline of the country is concave or convex. A line could be drawn which would go from Berwick to somewhere on the English coast in the Humber region. Another line could follow the border between Scotland and England from the Solway to Berwick and continue into the North Sea. We would have a number of oilfields on either side of that line. An important point emerges here.
The SNP has indicated in the past that it would give independence to the Shetlands. That is something which my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West also points out. If we assume that the SNP is democratic, as it says, the interesting thing is that Scotland would be left with five oilfields out of the total number of oilfields that exist at present. Five oilfields would belong to Scotland and the rest would belong both to the Shetlands and to England.
Of course, the Shetlands would be the richest part of the United Kingdom and would want to go back with England rather than be part of Scotland, as has been indicated on more than one occasion.
The proposition put by the hon. Member for Dundee, East invites the Committee to agree to a multiplication of work that has already been done and to which enormous amounts of money, time and energy have already been devoted.
That would do two things. If we agreed to the amendment, we would be asking this country again to discover the wheel. Secondly, we would be producing a recipe for chaos for many years to come.

Mr. Hamish Gray: At the outset, may I associate myself with the tributes that have already been paid to the late Mr. William Small? He frequently took an interest in energy matters and it is appropriate that we should remember him at this time.
6 p.m.
When I first read this amendment I felt that it was, to some extent, sinister and cynical. Having listened to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), I am convinced that it is wholly impractical as well. I felt that it was sinister because in some respects it is a wrecking amendment. If the Committee accepted it, it would change the whole concept of the Bill.
With the exception of Members of the Scottish National Party, the first and foremost consideration of everyone in this Committee, irrespective of his or her view of devolution, is the maintenance of the economic viability of the United Kingdom. If we were to devolve the powers that have been suggested by the hon. Member in his amendment we would be contributing, as the Minister of State said, to a step towards separation. There is no doubt that this is what the SNP wants.
I do not think that the SNP wants to see the Scottish Assembly work successfully. In fact, the more unsuccessful it is the better the nationalists will like it. They would use its failure as a stamping ground for their demands for total separation. Then their claim that they see the Assembly as a step towards separation would be fulfilled. That is why it is imperative, in creating a Scottish Assembly, that the Committee should get its duties absolutely right. To go along with this amendment would be a great mistake.
I feel that the amendment is cynical because it is very doubtful that a measure such as that suggested by the hon. Member would benefit Scotland in the long term. It was interesting that he called in aid in his argument the position of the Scottish consumer. He put forward very few arguments to give any indication of how the Scottish consumer would be likely to benefit if the amendment were accepted.
We are not being presented with the creation of a special fund from which money could be voted for energy projects. We are not even being presented with a fund from oil revenues which would be at the disposal of the Assembly to spend on projects as it thought fit, not necessarily related to oil. We were given an outline of how practically the entire


energy industry should be devolved to the Scottish Assembly.
I come now to the position of coal, gas, oil and electricity, and in considering electricity we cannot avoid mentioning nuclear power to which I will refer later. The Minister, in what I regard as the best hatchet job I have heard him perform for a long time, wholly demolished the case of the hon. Member for Dundee, East. There is already a considerable amount of decentralisation, as opposed to devolution, in electricity. The North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board and the South of Scotland Hydro Electric Board represent massive examples of decentralisation. These two bodies are not even subject to the reorganisation of the electricity industry which will take place shortly.
It is interesting that the hon. Member for Dundee, East should have cited the cost of the Bill related to the increased borrowing powers of the aluminium smelter at Invergordon. This project was certainly not deprived of discussion time in the House. We debated it in Committee upstairs and then again on the Floor of the House at the request of one of my hon. Friends. The debate on a Thursday afternoon resulted in a large number of Scottish Members staying on here.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I did cite that as a debate that we had on the electricity industry.

Mr. Gray: I accept that the hon. Member mentioned it. However, I thought that he was trying to argue the case for this being given over to the Scottish Assembly, but he has not made that point.
When we talk of electricity we cannot avoid the question of nuclear power. Once again the hon. Member produced a perfectly reasonable argument, to some extent against his own amendment, when he said that enormous sums of money were involved in the development of nuclear energy, and these were almost reaching the stage where countries could not approach such ventures on their own. The case of Torus and European participation in this project, is an example of this. This leads me to the belief that we should be trying to unite and have much greater resources for these purposes.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) made a harsh attack on the hon. Member and his party, as he has done in the past. I would not go along with that entirely. I have served on Committees with the hon. Member for Dundee, East and, although I am mainly in disagreement with him, I feel that he argues his case with conviction. I disagree entirely with the policies used by his party. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West gave one of the many instance in which the SNP speaks with many tongues.
As a great supporter of the fast breeder reactor I can give another instance of this. The SNP has cast grave doubts on the future of the fast breeder reactor in many parts of the country, yet its parliamentary candidate in Caithness and Sutherland is demanding that the first commercial fast breeder reactor should be located in that constituency. He is quite right and I agree with him, but it is a peculiar posture for a candidate to take when his own party is casting greatest possible doubts on the future of the project.
The case of Babcock and Wilcox has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West and the hon. Member for Dundee, East. Of course, this is a typical case where in fact the location of Babcock and Wilcox in Scotland is a dispersal which, requiring work to satisfy its work force, depends to an enormous degree on orders from England and other regions of the United Kingdom. Therefore it seems yet another argument against the proposal put forward by the hon. Member for Dundee, East.
On the question of gas, the Gas Act 1972 created the corporate body in the British Gas Corporation. It is only a few months since Scottish gas from the North Sea stopped coming via England. Only now that the Frigg field, a United Kingdom-Norwegian field, is coming on stream have we got coming into Scotland gas which, by any conceivable argument, can be said to be coming from Scottish waters.
The whole question of Scottish waters has been used by the Scottish National Party and has been totally misrepresented by it. Other speakers today have pointed out the folly of the argument of a median line for Scottish and English waters, because there is no such thing as a


median line, and we are very much in the dark as to what constitutes Scottish waters, English waters or even Shetland waters. Therefore, considerable doubts have been cast on the estimates of Scottish reserves made by the SNP. This is typical of the attitude of the SNP. It claims that Scotland has 400 years of reserves. How on earth can those reserves be accurately determined when there is no way at this point in time of deciding exactly which waters the Nationalists claim as Scottish?

Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend might explain the argument about there being 400 years of reserves. At what price and for what level of depletion each year? This is an assertion which has been made in vague terms, but none of us can understand it.

Mr. Gray: That is a good point and, again, casts doubt on the SNP's forecast. It has not stated what its depletion policy is. It has changed it on a number of occasions. Indeed, during the proceedings on the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill the then Minister of Energy and I challenged the SNP representative on a number of occasions. At that time the SNP's depletion policy was about half or less than half of that adopted by the Government, but as we pointed out to the hon. Gentleman that if his policy were followed through he would not create any more jobs but instead would create additional unemployment, overnight the policy was then changed. If that policy has been changed again, I am prepared to be guided by the hon. Gentleman, but there is no doubt that these estimates are vague in the extreme.
The suggestion of devolving gas powers to the Scottish Assembly would create fantastic disruption. The British Gas Corporation has entered into contracts with all the suppliers. Therefore, it would now be a mammoth task to try to unravel those agreements, and at the end of the day the people of Scotland, for whose benefit the hon. Gentleman presumably moved the amendment, will be no better off. This is a case of trying to devolve merely for the sake of devolving, without any benefit accruing to the consumer in whose interests the hon. Gentleman claims to speak.
Let me move on to consider the subject of devolving powers in respect of coal operations, which is the most ridiculous suggestion of all. The National Coal Board reports and accounts show in the trading results for mining activities in Scotland that since the year 1973–74 there has been a loss in Scottish pits of no less than £44 million. There are reasons for those losses and we need not go into them in detail, but I believe that there is a poor case for devolving that matter wholly to Scotland when the NCB, which is part of the United Kingdom set-up, has subsidised Scottish pits in the past and when there is a good developing pattern since the losses are getting fewer. In 1973–74 there was a loss of £19·2 million, and it fell in 1976–77 to a loss of only £4·7 million. Therefore, the trend is good. It is wrong to devolve these matters when the Scottish pits have been subsidised to a considerable extent in the past.
Investment in the coal industry is considerable. The hon. Member for Dundee, East served with me on the Coal Industry Bill and we debated the large sums of money to be invested in the years ahead. There is little doubt that a great deal of work has already been done in Scotland at Musselburgh and Castlehall and that a great deal more work remains to be done, of which Scotland will have its share.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to an incident in the discussions on the Coal Industry Bill when the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) took him up on a point relating to the rundown of manpower. It is rarely that I call in aid words said by the hon. Member for Bolsover, but for once in his life he was right. He pointed out on 24th March in the Standing Committee on the Coal Industry Bill that although the industry had run down manpower in Scotland over a period of time from 50,000 to 28,000 in 1976, the rundown in Derbyshire was very much higher. Therefore, it appears that the fact the SNP frequently tends to say that Scotland is always the ill-treated victim in so many issues must be countered by saying that in that instance the problem in Derby-shire was of more serious proportions.
6.15 p.m.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East has argued the case on oil in many


debates. Up to the present time investment in oil has been on a United Kingdom basis. The only reason this amendment has been moved is that the SNP sees the transfer of powers in respect of oil to the Scottish Assembly as a preliminary step towards total separation. That is what the hon. Centleman and his party want. He presented his amendment in a low key, quite different from the way in which he and his political friends present their case in Scotland. When in Scotland they use their emotive antics at every available opportunity to try to inflict their point of view on the people of Scotland, whether they want to accept it or not.
The SNP's chairman, Mr. William Wolfe, believes that independence and oil are totally separate, but he forgets that the SNP has based its credibility purely on the oil finds. Before the discovery of oil the SNP at no time had more than one Member in the House. The Welsh nationalists, without a splash of oil, had 300 per cent. more Members than the Scottish nationalists had in similar circumstances. I emphasise that their credibility is based solely on oil. That may account for some of their optimistic forecasts. The seats which they won were won as a result of the oil boom.
We do not know how the hon. Member for Dundee, East sets out his case on oil. In the Committee on the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill he tabled an amendment to create another oil corporation. He wanted to set up a Scottish national oil corporation. However, we did not hear about that today, so perhaps he has changed his view yet again.
There is also considerable worry about research. The hon. Member wishes to devolve that matter, too. Research will require an enormous amount of money, and it is surely to everybody's benefit that this should be done on a United Kingdom basis, not on a solely Scottish basis. The hon. Gentleman argues in this way because he is dedicated to the break-up of the United Kingdom and the total separation of Scotland.

Mr. Douglas Crawford: It is all to do with the sovereignty of the nation.

Mr. Gray: It is not a question of the sovereignty of the nation. That is a dan-

gerous remark, which the hon. Gentleman makes every now and again. He is one of those peculiar SNP Members—

Mr. Richard Buchanan: They are all peculiar.

Mr. Gray: The SNP thinks that a couple of folk singers and some emotive Scottish songs are all that we need to survive in an independent Scotland. It is dangerous when the hon. Gentleman brings emotive arguments into the realistic approach that we hope the Committee will always take on these matters.
It is essential that we preserve the economic viability of the United Kingdom. Accepting the amendment would be a disastrous step against that objective and I hope that the Committee will reject the proposal.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: May I start by joining other hon. Members in paying tribute to the late Willie Small? When I first moved to London a few years ago as a new Member, I stayed for a while in the same digs as Willie and I always found his assistance and advice very valuable.
Willie had a tremendous depth of experience in local government, the trade union movement and parliamentary politics. He was one of those hon. Members who went out of his way to share with others, particularly new Members, the fruits of that experience. While I shall miss his assistance and guidance, I shall miss most of all his comradeship and friendship.
Turning to the amendment, the House should not be misled by the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). The purpose of the amendment is to enable the separatist Scottish State, which the hon. Gentleman and his separatist friends envisage, to get a lion's share of North Sea oil.
The basis of the amendment is the philosophy of greed. Indeed, the whole philosophy of nationalism is based on greed and selfishness and the idea that the distribution of wealth should depend simply on its geographic location and geological factors and happenings that took place thousands of years ago under the surface of the earth or under the ocean bed.
I do not know what other hon. Members opposite think about that, but to my


hon. Friends, that philosophy is alien to everything that our movement stands for. Socialism is based on the philosophy that the distribution of wealth should not depend simply on the place of its discovery, but should be to those who are most in need, whether they are in Strathclyde, Central Scotland, the Highlands, the Lowlands, Tayside, Tyneside, Teeside, Merseyside or anywhere else in the United Kingdom where we see that people are in need.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: When the hon. Gentleman puts that proposition in his chauvinistic fashion as a little Scotlander or little Britisher, is he saying that oil money should be kept in London and not distributed elsewhere? For instance, would he give it to the Italian Government?

Mr. Canavan: There is a great need to build Socialist links between Britain and other countries. I am not thinking in terms of the Common Market, because I do not see that as a suitable agency for the distribution of wealth in a Socialist manner. In principle, I believe in building Socialist links with other countries and in sharing our energy and other resources with other needy countries. But this amendment would turn the clock back.
We have to consider the amendment and the Bill in the context of the partnership which Scotland has had with its nearest neighbour for more than 200 years. It is on the history of that partnership that we must make up our minds whether to accept or reject the amendment.
My hon. Friends and I believe in a Socialist energy policy rather than in leaving energy and the dictation of energy policy to multinational oil companies and the like. That is why we set up the British National Oil Corporation and decided to locate its headquarters, along with those of the offshore supplies office, in Glasgow. There was an understandable welcome for the location of those important energy headquarters in Scotland, but when we discussed the Bill that set up the BNOC, the hon. Member for Dundee, East, who is the SNP spokesman on energy, tried in Committee to smash the Corporation. That was the gratitude

shown by the SNP for the good sense and generosity of the Government in locating the headquarters of that important new national corporation in Scotland.
The SNP tried to smash the BNOC into four bits—a Scottish national oil corporation, an English national oil corporation and, believe it or not, a Welsh national oil corporation and a Northern Ireland national oil corporation. Have hon. Members ever heard anything so stupid?
The nationalists often invite their Plaid Cymru colleagues from Wales to their meetings and, in turn, send fraternal delegates to the Welsh nationalists annual conferences and so on. Yet their concern even for fellow nationalists is so lacking and they are so chauvinistic that they are unwilling to share what they consider to be Scotland's oil even with their colleagues in Wales. That is the depth of parochialism expressed in the SNP energy policy.
After the SNP tried unsuccessfully to smash up the BNOC, the Bill returned to the Floor of the House for Third Reading. SNP Members then voted against it. They were voting for the interests of the multinational oil companies rather than for the interests of the people of Scotland, including workers in the oil industry and the consumers. That is the measure of the concern of the SNP. Its Members are more concerned with protecting the interests of multinational oil companies than with using energy resources for the good of the community and extending public ownership and control by means of the BNOC.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The hon. Gentleman must realise that the reason all the major oil companies signed participation agreements on a "no gain, no loss" basis was that they stood to lose nothing. The whole question of participation and a Socialist energy policy was a charade which the Government had to present because they were unable to negotiate anything realistic.

Mr. Canavan: I am the first to admit that the powers of the BNOC are not perfect. It is not strong enough. But there would have been virtually no public control or public ownership and certainly no corporation at all if the majority of hon. Members had voted with the SNP Members on the Third Reading of


the Bill. They voted against the Oil Corporation.
I said earlier that the thinking behind the amendment was the philosophy of greed and selfishness. It is not even based on good sense and logic. The SNP seems to think that the vast majority of the oil would necessarily be in the Scottish section of the North Sea if we had the misfortune to have a completely separate Scottish State.
6.30 p.m.
I do not believe that this proposition stands up. Many people who are unbiased in this matter have done considerable legal research into the drawing up of a median line and it is naïve and simplistic to imagine that it would simply be a line of latitude running from Berwick-upon-Tweed, for example. It would more likely be a line running up towards the North-East from Berwick-upon-Tweed, because that is the direction of the border between Scotland and England at that point. There is also the strong possibility of Orkney and Shetland opting out of a separate Scottish State if that ever came about.
We need to think, too, of the situation not so long ago, when the first drop of North Sea oil came ashore in England. I can remember the chauvinism of the SNP. It claimed in intemperate language, especially in constituencies north of the border, that the English were stealing Scotland's oil. That is the propaganda that it issued.
Apart from parochialism and greed, that allegation was not even based on fact. The first oil to be landed came from the Argyll Field. If there ever was a separation of Scotland from England, in all probability the median line that would be drawn would put the Argyll Field, or the major part of it, in English waters. So much for the invalid and nonsensical claim made by the SNP about the English stealing Scotland's oil. It is quite probable that the median line would be such, and if Orkney and Shetland opted out of a separate Scottish State it is likely that Scotland would be left with less than half of the North Sea oil discoveries that are already in existence.
A similar situation applies to gas. Ministers have said—certainly until the Frigg field started to come on stream—

that about 95 per cent. of the gas consumed in Scotland comes from what would be the English sector of the North Sea.
I turn briefly to the coal industry. The hon. Member for Dundee, East said that Scotland contained about a quarter of the United Kingdom's workable coal seams. It depends upon what is meant by workable. A great deal of public investment is required of the National Coal Board to make many of the seams workable. It is a known fact that the average output per man shift in the Scottish coalfields is considerably less than the average output per man shift south of the border. Why is that? It is not because the Scottish miners work any less hard than their counterparts in England and Wales; Indeed, the probability is that they work harder.
Why is the output per man shift, on average, lower? The reason is the geological structure, the incidence of faults and the narrowness of seams in many of the Scottish pits. This is why people in the National Coal Board and, just as important if not more important, people in the National Union of Mineworkers, would have nothing to do with the stupidity of the amendment. It is clear that the amendment would lead to that which the SNP wants, namely, a completely separate Scottish coal board.
If a separate Scottish coal board had been set up in 1947, when the industry was nationalised, and if Scotland had been told to go it alone then, the likelihood is that there would now be virtually no coal industry left in Scotland. That is why spokesmen in the NUM such as Mr. Eric Clarke, the newly-appointed Scottish general secretary, and his colleagues, would utterly reject this amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) correctly pointed out the need for an integrated energy strategy combined with an integrated industrial strategy. Drax B provides a good example, involving 5,000 jobs being at stake in the boiler-making industry in Scotland, in Babcock and Wilcox. The jobs' survival depended on an English electricity generating company placing an order. That sums up the importance, in employment terms, of an integrated energy and industrial strategy on a United Kingdom basis.
The amendment would be against the long-term interests of the people of Scotland as well as the people of England and Wales. That is why I am sure that the Committee will reject it by an overwhelming majority.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I did not intend to intervene in the debate but the speech of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) persuaded me to do so.
The hon. Member for West Stirling-shire (Mr. Canavan) referred to the hon. Gentleman's speech and his argument about the Drax B power station. It is true that although it is situate in England it will create work in Scotland for many people—Babcock and Wilcox, in the boiler-making industry. It will also be doing something that to my mind is even more important in the longer term; it will keep alive the skills and expertise not only on the shop floor but in the drawing office and design departments and in the management team. If there were a shortage of work, those skills and expertise would be dissipated and probably never recovered. We could therefore lose for ever not only jobs but the capacity of the industry. That seems to be something for which it is worth fighting.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West said that we required a United Kingdom policy—I agree with him—to ensure that English orders go to Scottish engineering firms. I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the Committee from personal experience that it is not always easy to get even Scottish organisations in the electricity generating industry to place their orders with Scottish firms when English or other firms are making cheaper quotations. That is the sort of conflict which even the Scottish National Party would not wish to see, but which would arise if we did not have an integrated United Kingdom energy policy.
We have had a good deal of talk about the distribution of wealth and its place of origin. The Committee should remember exactly what North Sea oil does. It provides the United Kingdom with a source of energy that is rather expensive but does not cost us anything in foreign exchange. If the saving in foreign exchange were frittered away and spent unnecessarily, it could make our inflationary situation a great deal worse. It must

be used for investment for the future, to build up the industries all over the United Kingdom that need new investment against the time when the oil runs out.
Investment in the production of energy for the future requires large resources. Curiously enough, investment in production of electricity whether it is in nuclear power stations, oil-fired power stations or coal-fired power stations, is not much different, over a period, in terms of the sum required to make the same quantity of electricity. There is not a great difference in investment costs. The difference comes in the research and development costs on the nuclear side.
I suggest to the Committee that the possibilities of developing British nuclear energy depend very much on Scotland and Wales and England working together. Of course, it may be too big a burden for the whole of the United Kingdom, although I do not believe that it would be. But it would be too much for one part alone.
If we are to face the twenty-first century with any degree of confidence, we must be ready to accept the possibility that the fossil fuels that we now burn so readily could by then be too precious as raw materials to burn and will be required for other purposes.
We need a national energy policy not only for ourselves but to provide energy that we can sell to the rest of the world, as is the case now, with fast-breeder reactors. All too often this country has led the field in technological development, and then, for one foolish reason or another, has given up just before success is reached and allowed others to reap the benefit of our expertise. That, perhaps, is one of the reasons why our output is bad and our unemployment high.
I beg the Committee to reject the amendment, with an eye on the future of our children and theirs, and so that we retain the unity and strength to develop the fast-breeder reactor so as to be able not only to provide ourselves with energy but once more, as a nation, to be able to sell energy to the world and be in a position to continue by our own effort the benefits that God has given us in the North Sea.

Mr. Dalyell: Had he been with us, Willie Small would probably have been participating in the debate. Ever since


he was Fred Lee's PPS at the Ministry of Fuel and Power, he had a continuing interest in energy problems, and I pay tribute to a friend.
Before I ask questions of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, perhaps I may draw to the attention of their Lordships, if it is in order, the fact that it looks as though, the guillotine falling at 9 o'clock, it is they and not the House of Commons who will have to discuss all sorts of vital matters in relation to civil aviation, colleges of agriculture, water-ways, forestry and the universities.
I wish to ask various questions of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The first question—perhaps it is my only rhetorical question—is whether, when he listens to the kind of speech that was made by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), he thinks that here is another example of politicians—it is not only the SNP; it is many other people—who are trying to have it both ways on the issue of nuclear waste. I can only report to the House that the chairman of the SNP—who contests West Lothian—in order, I suspect, to get out of his dilemma, the uncomfortable business of having to explain what to do with nuclear waste, which raises emotions and is awkward for all of us, says that we must rely on wave power and alternative sources energy, particularly wind power.
Consider the technical facts that we have to face. In order to have the equivalent output of a modern nuclear power station, 1,000 megawatts, how many windmills does one need? The answer is that for aerodynamic reasons one has to have 30,000 windmills. I say to the chairman of the SNP or anyone else that 30,000 windmills take up at least 400 square miles of constantly wind-swept territory.
Therefore, before thinking that one can easily get out of these difficulties with conservation arguments—because nuclear waste is emotional for conservationists—and before starting to organise marches in Ayrshire or anywhere else, members of SNP should ask themselves what the same conservationists—or, for that matter, the farmers—would say to the idea of 400 square miles of the United Kingdom being taken up by the equivalent of one nuclear power station. That sort of argument does not seem credible.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is temporarily out of his place, because I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State some questions about letters that some of us have received from the Shetland Islands Council. I have received a letter from Mr. John Jamieson. I shall spare the Committee the whole letter and read only the point on page 2 that is directly apposite to our debate. The Council says,
Shetland's voice on issues critical to Shetland such as fishing, agriculture, transport, or oil-related development will no longer be clearly heard; future action by the Scottish Assembly may, deliberately or inadvertently, lead to a situation arising whereby the oil development located in Shetland becomes a subject of controversy with Central Government; (such a conflict could have disasterous results for both the United Kingdom and Shetland); the degree of control achieved by Shetland over oil-related developments will be unilaterally weakened by the Scottish Assembly.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and others went on an all-party delegation when we were invited by the Shetland Islands Council. We had understood at one stage that the council's fears were being allayed. It would seem that that is not so, and I think that this is the appropriate amendment for the Minister to comment on that.
6.45 p.m.
I return to the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, East. One of the things that he said about electricity was that time was not available in the House of Commons. Like my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I absolutely deny that. First of all, on any kind of the problems that the hon. Member was outlining, dealing with the dissatisfactions of Scottish consumers, it is possible for any Scottish Member of Parliament to go to Cathcart House. In Frank Tomb's time I always found that we were entirely welcome to go there and discuss, most promptly and at a senior level, any of these difficulties.
In terms of an Assembly, what is it precisely that we are asking. The idea that somehow or other an Assembly should supervise the South of Scotland Electricity Board seems to me to raise real questions about precisely what the function of the Assembly is to be. If the Assembly is to act as a consumers' spokesman against the SSEB, I shall want


to know more about that, because I am not sure that that is the function of a subordinate Parliament.

Equally, my hon. Friend the Minister of State was quite right to point out, as was the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), that when we needed legislative time on the issue of Invergordon, it was easily available and forthcoming. The truth of the matter is that whenever a group of Members of Parliament are sufficiently concerned about a serious subject, there are endless ways in which they can raise it fairly promptly. Therefore, that argument does not hold water.
Take the example of the coal industry. I need only echo my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). Of course Eric Clarke and others have been extremely careful to say that, as far as it affects them in the National Union of Mineworkers, they want nothing to do with the kind of idea that is put forward in the amendment.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East said that an Assembly would be able to do something about the Scottish gas board. Quite what it would be able to do was not clear, but the hon. Member said that it was very attractive, that this was the kind of thing that was being put forward in Scotland, and that would certainly be able to do something about the Scottish gas board. This means that for everyone who has a gas problem—anyone whose gas pipe or cooker is faulty—somehow or other, by some magic wand, the Assembly will do something.
The truth is nothing of the kind. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Dundee, East if he wants to interrupt me. What could be done by 150 Assemblymen in Edinburgh or a Scottish Parliament about the Scottish gas board that we, as conscientious Members of Parliament, could not do from Westminster?

Mr. Gordon Wilson: As the hon. Gentleman invites me to intervene, may I ask him this: does he accept that it would be desirable, first, that Scottish Gas should be reconstituted on a Scottish basis?

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: Why?

Mr. Wilson: So that it can come under the control of those who represent the consumers in Scotland. The Scottish Consumer Council, which I quoted, recommended that the fuel industries should come under the Assembly's control.

Mr. Galbraith: Why?

Mr. Wilson: The council believes that that would be advantageous.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman's response is precisely what I suspected. If I misquote him, he will refute what I say, but I believe that we have elicited the interesting view that Scottish Gas should be run by a consumers' organisation. One cannot run a gas industry in that way.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I did not say that.

Mr. Dalyell: I think that the hon. Gentleman did. He can perhaps make clear on another occasion precisely what he means, but the impression is left that somehow or other it would be much better for consumers if we had that kind of Assembly. I believe that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) wishes to intervene.

Mr. Galbraith: I was only half thinking of asking the hon. Gentleman to give way. I do not know whether he recalls that in 1951 it was decided to split up the Electricity Authority and set up the South of Scotland Electricity Board and have it and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, in answer to the demands of the then Scottish National Party. It was done by the Conservative Government, and it was probably a mistake. I do not think that it has done any good.
Now the SNP is suggesting that the same thing should be done with regard to gas. In a small country such as Britain it is not sensible to do this. Although electricity has been split up, it has to work as one unit, but it is responsible to two different Ministers.

Mr. Dalyell: I was right in surmising that the hon. Gentleman was pregnant with a worthwhile intervention. I leave it at that.

Mr. Galbraith: The delivery may not have been as good as it could have been.

Mr. Dalyell: I turn to the question of the consumers. Here I want to ask one


question based on the document that we all have. The Consumer Council says:
This Consumer Protection Committee would have responsibility (i) for ensuring that, when desirable, uniform law and enforcement should obtain on both sides of the border".
That and a number of other matters in the document raise something of a confusion. There should be a Government response in the light of the kind of remarks so often made from the SNP Bench.
I come to the question of the disagreement that I have with my own Front Bench, which is a fundamental one. My hon. Friend the Minister of State was absolutely right to say that whatever may be said in soft tones in this Chamber, the situation in Scotland is very different. There have been repeated advertisements along the lines that it is "oor" oil, his oil, her oil, their oil. The truth is that without oil in the North Sea we should not be on the tenth day of this melodrama.
What the amendment reveals is that within days of the Assembly's meeting there would be a demand for the oil revenues. That is as certain as anything could be. The idea of passing the buck for refusing Scotland the oil revenues to three, four, or five wise men, or whatever the number may be, on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, is unrealistic. On 29th November my hon. Friend the Minister of State said:
The most effective check against the Assembly extending its powers is the use of the Judicial Committee, but I have to counter arguments from the Opposition dealing with a rather academic matter. The vires check would be used if the Assembly sought to extend its powers by, for example, taxing oil revenues. It would then be checked by the Judicial Committee."—[Official Report, 29th November 1977; Vol. 940, c. 354.]
Some of us might be forgiven for being sceptical about this. I wish my right hon. Friend the Lord President no harm, but it would serve him right if he were consigned at some future date to membership of the Judicial Committee which had to decide whether it was Scottish oil or British oil—whether it was "oor" oil or not. The buck is passed to the Judicial Committee, and I ask my colleagues to imagine the headline on the front page of the Daily Record after it made its decision. The headline might read "Foot, Dilhorne and Denning deny Scots Oor Oil". There would be a piece under

neath, doubtless by Mr. Stewart McLaughlin, to the effect that "Three English Privy Councillors yesterday denied Scotland oor oil revenues. The Prime Minister of Scotland and his Cabinet will today go into emergency session to discuss what action they should take."
I see my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) nodding agreement. He and I know that that is not a fanciful scenario. It is exactly what would happen. The sentiments in the amendment are precisely those that would be translated into a clarion call from a section of the Assembly, a section which I suggest would not be limited to SNP Assemblymen.

Mr. John Smith: Rubbish.

Mr. Dalyell: I am very aware of the temptations that politicians will face. It would be a brave candidate of any party who said "I think that in no circumstances should the Assembly to which I hope to be elected have the oil revenues". Every candidate will have to make promises. Great expectations have been raised, and in order to fulfil the promises someone will have to say where the money is coming from. The temptation will be to say that it will come from North Sea oil. Therefore, we have a great problem.
Later tonight, if there is time, we shall come to Schedule 12. Compared with the image of the Judicial Committee in deciding whether it is "oor" oil under the conditions of Schedule 12, Sir John Donaldson would be a figure of political objectivity. This is bringing the High Court into the politics of oil in a big way. Either now or in the debate on Schedule 12, this point must be tackled. The idea that the Judicial Committee should decide the most delicate, controversial, explosive question of the destination of the oil revenue is to drag the High Court into the political maelstrom in a way that should never happen.

Mr. John Smith: As my hon. Friend is making such a meal of this matter, may I say that what the Judicial Committee will be deciding is whether a measures falls within the vires of the Scotland Act? That is the only question that it will be deciding, and it is perfectly reasonable that it should. It is not involved in international or local politics.


It is a matter of vires only. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that. I think that everyone else in the Chamber does.

Mr. Dalyell: That is a very comfortable point of view—

Mr. John Smith: It is true.

Mr. Dalyell: It is a very comfortable point of view. I am in some difficulty. I have sent copies of Hansard to seven judges of the High Court who, because of their legal pre-eminence, might be expected to serve on a Judicial Committee—Lords Denning, Diplock, Wilberforce, Edmund-Davies, Gardiner, Salmon and Dilhorne.
I cannot, of course, reveal the contents of the replies in public, but they were very discreet, and I am not saying that they were all on my side of the argument. All that I say is that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has a problem here, as we all have. It is one matter to inform the Registrar of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on this. It is another matter actually to discuss it with those who will be at the sharp end. If I am told that they may not be on the Judicial Committee, that may be so. The question is how the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is to be formed, because it would be even more controversial to have former Lords President of the Council from any party. Therefore, we are in the very greatest difficulty when discussing the politics of oil.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State is quite civilly impatient with me on the subject, but I wish that some of the scales would fall from the eyes of my own Front Bench to allow them to see the folly of what will happen in practice as a result of their actions. The speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, East really provides a classic argument for why this Bill should be defeated. This debate, albeit a long one, touches the very heart of the matter, which is what will happen should this Assembly ever be established.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. John Stokes: I agree very much with a great deal of what the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said. I have found, in attending most of these debates on

whatever clause, schedule or amendment it may have been, that, time and time again we have come back to the essential heart of the Bill and to the threat that the Bill poses to the unity of the United Kingdom.
I enjoyed the last speech of the Minister of State more than any other that I have heard so far. He rebutted the arguments of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) who, as the Minister said, spoke in a moderate tone and with smooth words. But, of course, the effect of the hon. Gentleman's amendment would be to prepare the way for a formal takeover of North Sea oil by the Scottish National Party before declaring Scotland an independent country. Everyone who is honest with himself must admit that oil has always been the main plank in the policy of the SNP and that the supposed wealth of oil for Scotland is the very nub of its case for independence.
Throughout these debates, I have been one of the few English Members present. I have been here partly to safeguard the interests of England but, just as important, to safeguard the interests of the United Kingdom. In my view, this amendment has rightly been called a wrecking amendment. It will deal a deadly blow to the unity of the United Kingdom.
We have heard various practical objections to the amendment. We have heard of the dangers to Scottish industry and to employment in Scotland, especially in those parts of industry supplying the oil and other energy industries, if this amendment were to be accepted and Scotland were to be responsible for the administration of the great oil industry.
In looking at our energy policy, I am certain that we have to do so from a United Kingdom point of view. Any attempt to deal with such a vast subject as energy policy in terms of Scotland or Wales or even of England would be a very grave mistake.
What has come out in this debate is that, without the discovery of North Sea oil, the Scottish National Party would not hold the seats in Scotland that it does today and we should not be debating this amendment to this Bill. Scotland was a poor country until the Union in 1707. After that, it flourished greatly for a


long time until, I suppose, the depression of the late 1920s. Now it has once again gone through miseries which the Labour Government, unfortunately, have inflicted on the whole of the United Kingdom.
The capture of oil in the North Sea for Scotland's exclusive use offered a way out, and all those who were tempted by greed jumped on the Scottish National Party bandwagon. It has been an unedifying spectacle, especially for friends of Scotland in England who have always admired the Scottish people and their great contribution to the United Kingdom.
No one seriously believes that Scotland should take over the United Kingdom's oil. But the Scottish National Party raises the cry "We have been robbed." Through the ages it has been the cry of those with a chip on their shoulders and those with a grudge which they have developed and exaggerated to compensate themselves for their own shortcomings. That such an absurd amendment as this could be tabled shows what an absurd and extraordinary Bill this is and how far this Committee is straying from reality.
What annoys and distresses me and what, I know, annoys and distresses an increasingly large number of people in the United Kingdom as a whole, is that here we are in this Chamber, discussing the Scotland Bill day after day—we are on our tenth day today—while the country is still suffering from one of the most serious economic problems to have affected it since the war.
We know that oil can help with our balance of payments, but it is not the answer to our problems. The answer for Scotland, as for England and for the rest of the United Kingdom, is to learn to produce as efficiently as our competitors do, to cut down overmanning in our industries and to ensure that in design, quality, delivery and servicing our products are the equal of any other country's. That is the essential problem facing the country today—coupled with the lack of incentive and the low morale among many people without leadership. That is what we should be discussing, not this silly amendment in this dangerous and irrelevant Bill.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr.

Stokes) said that in relation to North Sea oil the feeling had been expressed "We wuz robbed." The genesis of this amendment and the very philosophy of the Scottish National Party arise from feelings which, either real or imaginary, stem from the fact that people believe that the real benefits of North Sea oil have not reached particular individuals or groups of people.
Some months ago, I received a letter from a constituent. It was an anonymous letter. It was headed "Labour voter turning SNP". The letter made the point that, as a result of the boom in North Sea oil, people were coming from outside the city and getting houses which native Aberdonians could not get, and getting all the best jobs which native Aberdonians could not get, and that their children were overcrowding the schools, making it difficult for the children of native Aberdonians. They also seem to have a very high rate of sickness, because apparently it is more difficult to get into hospital because of the non-Aberdonians. At the same time, the non-Aberdonians are apparently coming to the city and benefiting from the social services.
The letter closed with a remark which I am sure every hon. Member has had directed towards him, either verbally or in writing at some time—
Send them back to where they belong.
But that means sending them back to Glasgow, not to England, and certainly not to some far overseas place.
It is difficult to know how my constituent's fears can be cured, and, when I hear in this amendment, as in others, how there is a strong case for either the proposed Assembly taking over the control of North Sea oil and its depletion or an independent Scotland doing so, I find myself almost giving way to certain temptations—not because of greed but simply on the basis of trying to do my best for my constituents and for other people around Aberdeen.
I am not sure whether I am making a formal announcement but I am tempted to say that it is perhaps a good idea to form a new party which would be dedicated to the Grampians. Its aim would be a Grampian unilateral declaration of independence. There would be certain difficulties. It may not have penetrated the mind of the Comimttee that if one


took the initials of the party, GUDI, the members would be known as "The Goodies". That would be a good start.
We are told that North Sea oil revenues might reach £3 billion per year. If one drew boundaries, however generous one were to the Orkneys and Shetlands, I reckon that my new independent State could claim two-thirds of the oil. That would give us a guaranteed income of £2 billion a year. I do not wish to say whom I would recommend to be life-president of this oil-rich kingdom, but I promise to carry out my duties faithfully.
Certain difficulties are involved in the question where one draws boundaries. The city of Aberdeen, which is Labour-controlled, would become the heartland of the new country. One could draw the boundary carefully so that it came just above the high water mark and project the boundaries out and claim the oil. I know that this proposition is a farce, but it is no more a farce than is the SNP proposition. By drawing boundaries in certain ways members of the SNP say that they have a right to claim the oil revenues.
There is little cultural or other affinity between the East and West coasts of Scotland. The only time that I received a standing ovation was when I was being heckled by the SNP. Jokingly, I said "It is Aberdeen oil". When they cheered me I had to say "Steady on, boys, it is a joke". The whole idea that we should claim revenues on the basis of spurious geographical lines is pure farce, and the sooner we recognise it the better.

Mr. Sproat: A number of hon. Members have correctly pointed out that if it were not for North Sea oil the SNP would be nowhere. That is indisputable. We know that there are other reasons for members of the SNP receiving votes, but if it were not for oil they would not have more than one hon. Member in the House of Commons. Despite the fact that they run on oil, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) gave a low-key speech on the one subject that swept him to power. We have the right to ask why he spoke in so low a key on a subject that he presents in such a hysterical key in Scotland. The reason is that North Sea oil is turning out to be a subject with rather more traps than he thought.
I am pleased to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Aberdeen. North (Mr. Hughes) in his farcical metaphor. It is no more ridiculous to talk of Aberdeen oil than to talk of Scottish oil. It is significant that in those two parts of Scotland where North Sea oil has already made the biggest impact—in Shetland and Grampian—the Bill is likely to receive a "No" vote in the referendum.
Like many hon. Members, I have received another letter from the Shetland Islands Council saying that it wants no part in the Bill. I am sure that if I asked the Grampian Regional Council it would be only too happy to say in even stronger terms what the Shetland Islands Council has already said.
7.15 p.m.
Perhaps the truth cannot be too frequently reiterated. Shetland has about 60 per cent. of the oil. That is why the hon. Member for Dundee, East was in such a low key. He did not want to draw attention to the fact that the Shetland Islands do not want anything to do with an independent Scotland or a Scottish Assembly. That truth wipes out the SNP's economic and other arguments. It is totally devastating to that party's case.
When the amendment was moved, we noticed something that was conspicuous by its absence—another two-faced argument that the SNP continually puts forward. When speaking to conservationists, members of the SNP say "Look at Norway. What a happy country that is, drawing out the oil slowly so that they do not have the problems involved in extracting the oil at the maximum rate." Members of the SNP say that they will move more slowly and take full account of the conservationists' argument.
They say that with one side of their mouth, but with the other they promise, on the billboards of Scotland, that "It is her oil", showing a picture of a poor old-age pensioner to illustrate that slogan. There is nothing that members of the SNP say will not be paid for by the oil, but that can be done only by extracting the oil at the fastest possible rate at the highest price.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East approaches the subject in such a low key because he is aware that although he can get away with it in Scotland, when holding a Press conference and with no one


to challenge him, it is another matter to present this economic nonsense to the House. The hon. Member therefore tried to skate over it.
Earlier an hon. Member talked about a self-governing Scotland, and the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) shouted "Sovereignty". It is unnecessary to go into the semantic differences between "sovereignty" and "self-governing independence". Members of the SNP are happy to talk about sovereignty when it has an emotional ring about it. But the hon. Member for Dundee, East did not want to talk about sovereignty, because he did not want to enter into all the clownish trappings that that entails—a Scottish air force, Scottish navy, Scottish customs and a Scottish diplomatic corps. Such trappings would cost about £1,000 million. Nor did he mention a Scottish dictator or Scottish president, which would cost even more. Sovereignty is mentioned when it is part of an emotional argument in Scotland but not when it involves all the extra costs which would eat up most of what North Sea oil would bring in, even assuming that Shetland oil and all the oil from the Auk, Josephine and Argyll fields went to Scotland.
There are many examples of the implicit dishonesty in the way in which the amendment was moved. It was typical of the case that members of the SNP present on every possible occasion. To each audience they give according to what they believe that audience wishes to hear.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) is not in the Chamber, because he made the type of speech that one can always respect. Even if one disagrees with him, if one puts a fact to him which he has not taken into account he will always say "That is a point", and try to get round it. There is an intellectual honesty about that approach.
When the hon. Member for Renfrew-shire, West said that Scotland had done very well out of the Union, the hon. Member for Dundee, East muttered "No, it has not." Yet every hon. Member knows that before oil entered the scene Scotland was getting out of the Union 20 per cent. more per head of the population than was England. According to the latest figures provided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer

expenditure in Scotland per head over England is running at 30 per cent. Yet the nationalists persist in saying that Scotland gets nothing out of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member said tonight "They will be spending the oil money in England." We know that Scotland now gets more than its fair share. There is no doubt that in the future, however the oil revenue is spent—whether, as Labour Members would like, to regenerate industry, or, as we would prefer, to cut taxation—Scotland will certainly benefit. The hon. Member for Dundee, East did not rise to his feet and ask about the 30 per cent. He muttered his comment sotto voce.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: If I rose to my feet on every insulting statement, I would never be off them. Does the hon. Member agree that Scotland has had less than its fair share of economic growth in the United Kingdom and far more than its fair share of unemployment?

Mr. Sproat: I cannot go into the definition of fair shares of unemployment or growth without straying out of order. But in that matter which is easily quantifiable, namely, money, Scotland gets more per head than any other part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the hon. Member have any figures to show, with every piece of Scottish industry or commerce, for how long after the Union the Scots still had some minute say in the Scottish economy?

Mr. Sproat: It would be fascinating to look into that and to look also into those companies which are resident in England and which I object to calling English companies, which were founded by Scotsmen and have Scottish managing directors or chairmen. It would be interesting to look into those great United Kingdom companies which have Scottish origins. I am thinking of Dunlop, as an example.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I do not think that the hon. Member understood my point. It was that the decline and fall of any part of Scottish industry or Scottish commerce was the fault of no one but the owners. In 95 per cent, of cases they were Scots themselves.

Mr. Sproat: The decline kept pace with the decline of natural resources, but that


is not attributable to any Englishman. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North is absolutely right. The SNP completely ignores that argument.
Let me return to one statement of principle on this amendment—the statement that what ever else we do, our energy programmes in this country must be unified; they must be United Kingdom programmes. It would be madness to have a Scottish energy programme or an English energy programme. The hon. Member for Dundee, East wants to devolve the control of North Sea oil to a Scottish Assembly as a step towards an independent Scotland. What would happen if a Scottish Assembly had control over the oil in Scotland while control of the oil discoveries which have just been made in Dorset remain under the control of this House? It would be absolute madness to develop two lots of controls and regulations, one for oil in Aberdeen and the other for oil in Dorset. The mind boggles at the bureacuracy, the confusion, the mistakes and the chaos that would result from trying to handle oil in different ways in different parts of the United Kingdom.
There is then the absurdity of the coal industry. No one in that industry has ever supported anything that the SNP has said about devolving control and responsibility for Scottish coal. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) pointed out that under this Government the Scottish coal industry had been subsidised to the extent of about £40 million by the United Kingdom Treasury and by that part of the British mining industry that lies outside Scotland.
Scotland gets its gas from off the Norfolk coast. That gas is supplied to every part of the United Kingdom at an equal price. The hon. Member for Dundee, East complained that his house did not get the gas very quickly. How soon does he think the people in Cornwall got their gas? Does the hon. Member believe that there is an official in the Department of Energy whose job it is to ensure that the Scots get their gas after the people of Lancashire or Cornwall? It defies credibility to think that the British Government operate on that basis.
I leave aside the ludicrous principle of trying to divide up the energy resources

of this country in order to give one example of the slippery arguments that the SNP uses. In this case it was the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Dundee, East in respect of research, the last named item in the amendment. He said that research should be devolved, but then he hurriedly moved on, because he knew that it would be ludicrous to devolve research to the Scottish Assembly. He said that of course research should be done on a European or even a world basis. There may be subjects which should be researched on such a wide basis, but at the moment research is done on a British basis. The hon. Member argued that research should be done on a European basis because of size. He defeats, with the logic of his own argument, his suggestion that research should be devolved to Scotland, which would be smaller.
As well as disregarding common sense and principle the nationalists are blatantly dishonest. One of the advantages of this House is that there are people here with enough intelligence to see through what the nationalists are trying to do. In Scotland they can get away with the slogan "It is your granny's oil", but they cannot do that here, and if this debate does nothing else it will enable us once and for all to nail down the SNP.

Mr. Budgen: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) that this debate is about oil. He concentrated upon oil because it is the promise of the oil revenues transforming the Scottish economy which has given life and force to the Scottish nationalist movement.
An interesting attack was launched against the SNP by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). He said that its policy was one of greed and he asked whether it was right that a nation should be rich simply because within its territory there was oil. He asked equally whether it was right for a nation to be rich because it had fertile land. I disagreed with his conclusion. The distribution of wealth is usually by chance. It might be by the chance of inheritance or by the chance of differences in ability. There is no alternative to that but the allocation of resources through direction by the State.
I do not attack the SNP on the ground that it is greedy. What I attack the SNP


about is the question whether its greed is wise greed, whether it uses its greed in order to enoble enlightened self-interest. Even on the most favourable assumptions, I would suggest that the greed of the SNP is likely to turn out to be self-defeating.
7.30 p.m.
Let us put the case on the basis of greed at its highest. Let us assume for a moment that all the oil in the North Sea could be described as Scottish oil. Let us assume that the Shetland problem does not exist and that the Shetlands can be regarded as part of Scotland for these purposes. What are the advantages that will accrue as a result of that oil? First of all, it must be pointed out that there is no such thing as a free market price for oil. It is a rigged market. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) has said, it is expensive oil. It is expensive because the price has been artificially kept high by the OPEC cartel.
Therefore, the principal advantage of this very expensive oil is not so much on the balance of payments, because that is going to mean that in all probability we shall have an over-valued currency. The real advantage will be in the tax take that will be levied on this expensive oil. Here again, on the assumption that all the oil is Scottish oil, what is the tax take that will come from the oil? It will be £2 billion a year in 1980. We cannot, because of the falsely high price of oil, look much further than 1980. But let us assume that because of the high price the rate of depletion is as fast as was predicted to 1980. Then it is £2 billion.
Let us try to see what £2 billion is in terms of the United Kingdom economy at present. According to the Government's expenditure plans in the White Paper published last week, in 1980 public expenditure will be running in the United Kingdom at about £60 billion. Therefore, by 1980, of that £60 billion, £2 billion will be contributed by the tax from North Sea oil.
Let us look at some of the Government's public expenditure plans in areas which are believed to be particularly important to Scotland. I am looking at Volume 2 of the Government's White Paper on public expenditure. In 1980–81 public expenditure on trade, industry and em-

ployment will be about £2 billion. Against the advantage of having that £2 billion for their exclusive use, the Scottish people will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South pointed out, have all the disadvantages of maintaining the trappings of sovereignty. They will have their own army, their own air force, their own diplomatic service, their own dictator or republic, or whatever they wish to have. As the hon. Member modestly puts it, this will be at a cost of about £1 billion a year. That is half of the oil revenues gone.
The best that can be hoped for the Scottish people, if they were to have a short-lived independence based upon those transitory and small revenues from the oil is 10, 15 or 20 years of sovereignty. Then what would happen? The Scottish National Party does not seem to understand the effect on the British people of independence based upon transitory wealth. The English people at present may be deluding themselves that the economic miracle that is often promised will now come about because of the oil revenues. No doubt it can properly be argued that all this talk about oil wealth is a damaging illusion to the English people.
But let us assume that the English people are denied that illusion and that all the oil revenues go to Scotland. The English people would have a few disagreeable years. There would have to be fiercer cuts in public expenditure than there might otherwise have been. But there would not be any long-term damage to the British economy if Scotland becomes independent. But one thing is clear. If Scotland, with her 5 million people, were to become independent, the attitude of the 50 million English people towards the price of oil would be different. We are now as keen as any oil sheikh to preserve the cartel and, as the hon. Member points out, not just to hold up the price but to push it up.
If we in England had no oil at all, as the hon. Gentleman points out, our interest would then be in cheap oil. It is precisely because we have a United Kingdom Parliament that we never adequately discuss the rights and wrongs and the pros and cons of holding up the price of oil and having more expensive energy. But it is certain that if it


were all Scotland's oil, the 50 million consumers of energy in England would be on the side of the cheapest possible oil that they could get.
Everybody knows that the capacity of the Saudis for the production of oil is far greater than the amount that they are producing at present. It could well be in their interests to flood the world with cheap oil and break the cartel.
Even if the illusion were true that Scotland might have 10 or 15 years of great and glorious wealth, with all the trappings of sovereignty and the featherbedding of the biggest and best Welfare State in the world, and all the industries never having to be subject to any market forces, the illusion is likely to be cut down and broken up by the stronger diplomatic forces of 50 million English people.
But what happens when the illusion is gone, when independence is seen not to be the great dream that Scotland hoped it would be? Does Scotland then come snivelling back to England? Does it then come grovelling along and ask to be taken back into the United Kingdom? Does Scotland say that the dream of independence based upon the oil revenues has turned out to be an illusion? Do the Scottish people say "There ain't as much money in oil as we thought there would be. We find that we are not as successful in diplomatic negotiations."?

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The hon. Member poses a very interesting question. Can he name any country in the world which, having been allowed independence from England, has come snivelling back asking to return to English rule?

Mr. Budgen: We are talking not about a colony but about a part of the United Kingdom. We are not talking about Pakistan or a country that naturally and rightly has its own sense of national historic identity. We are talking about two peoples who have stood together in peace and war ever since the Union and who are wholly and totally intertwined. We are talking about a dramatic severance that is proposed by a section of our United Kingdom. They should understand what they propose.
The logic of the severence is that the Scottish people will be severed for ever.

If, after 10, 15 or 20 years, the Scottish people were to say "We have blued it all, we have had a ball, but the assumptions on which we demanded independence have now changed", what would the English say? For example, the Scots might say "We are having a row with Norway about some of the marginal fields which we are now finally exploiting. We would like to give up our independence and join you, the 50 million English people, once again." What would the English say? I hope that they would be generous. I hope that they would say "Come back into the United Kingdom." But the SNP is inviting the Scottish people to take a grave risk.
I think that we are able adequately to point to the dangers facing the Scottish people in hoping for a short, illusory period of wealth. We ask them to weigh all that against the honour and dignity of being part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: This amendment is larcenous and ludicrous. It is larcenous because it seeks to steal from the people of the United Kingdom as a whole the oil that has been developed off our shores for our benefit. It demonstrates, as many hon. Members have said, that the Scottish National Party founds its argument on larceny.
Secondly, the amendment is ludicrous—

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Griffiths: I have more to say. Secondly, the amendment is ludicrous because the oil off the northern part of the United Kingdom is no more the exclusive property of the Scots than the food of Norfolk and Suffolk is the exclusive property of the people of East Anglia, part of which I have the honour to represent.
The East Anglians historically were a significant nation. From time to time they are tempted, when successive Governments in Whitehall get a little highhanded, to seek to go their own way. Indeed, on the basis of their corn, sugar beet, pigs and control of the important ports that now link us with the Common Market, it is possible that East Anglia could seek to go its own way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) referred to the gas that has been brought ashore in Norfolk. When that gas came ashore in Norfolk, the people of East Anglia did not start to talk about "oor gas". They recognised that the gas coming ashore at Bacton was for the benefit of the United Kingdom as a whole. Although it was piped to and distributed from Norfolk and Suffolk, causing considerable inconvenience for people in East Anglia, they recognised that it was for the benefit of the United Kingdom as a whole. Therefore, the amendment is larcenous and ludicrous.
The effect of the amendment would be to put all the hydrocarbons—the oil, the coal and so on—under the hammer of the Scottish Parliament. Recently, I had the pleasure of visiting Shetland and seeing some of the oil installations in the seas off the northern part of the United Kingdom. What is taking place there is, by any measure, a tremendous achievement of which this country can be extremely proud. The building of the ports, the refineries and the oil tank farms represents an enormously impressive achievement. That has been done not by the Scots alone, although they have taken a leading part, but by the international oil industry which has based its planning and obtained its investment on the United Kingdom as a whole. I do not believe that would have happened so speedily if there had been anything remotely resembling a separate Scottish nationalist Administration in Edinburgh.

Mr. Welsh: Why not?

Mr. Griffiths: That is my judgment. I do not believe that the international oil companies would have dreamed of basing the whole of their investment on the notions that have been put forward by SNP Members.

Mr. Welsh: Why did not the oil companies hesitate to move into Norway, which is similar to what would be represented by an independent Scotland? Why should they hesitate to do a job of work in Scotland if they are doing a similar job in Norway?

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Norway is more sensible.
An important aspect of oil development in the Shetlands is the supecial arrangement that has been made for the Shetland Islands Council. I regret that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is not present. I am sure that his absence from the Chamber is for a reason that we would all understand.

Mr. John Smith: I think that the hon. Gentleman should be fair. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) was present when the hon. Gentleman was not.

Mr. Griffiths: I am not seeking to draw attention to the right hon. Gentleman's absence. I am sure that it is for a very good reason. I do not wish to say anything that might offend him.
The talks with the Shetland Islands Council and many representatives of industry, agriculture, fishing and local community councils demonstrated the value that is attached to Shetland's single county council, to the arrangements that have been made for special controls over planning concerning oil and to access to a modest, but important, fund for the protection of the environment and, as time goes on, for help for local industries—notably fishing, crofting and woollens—affected by the inflationary effect of oil production.
It is right that those powers should exist. But what would happen if control were to pass exclusively to the Scottish Assembly? I believe that at some stage, whether the amendment is carried or not, the Scottish Assembly may seek to interfere with the local government provisions of the Shetlands. However, that matter is for another occasion.
I believe that in the long term, the Scottish Assembly would be unlikely to allow the Shetland islanders to have their special fund, which is different from any other arrangement within Scotland's finances. I am sure that, as Glasgow and other great cities of Scotland get into difficulties with housing and social problems of one kind or another, inevitably the majority in the Scottish Assembly will cast envious eyes on the financial arrangements that have been made for the Shetlands and will seek to put an end to them, consequently destroying the guarantee that the Shetland Islands will have


funds available to protect their environment, fishing, crofting and woollens from the inflationary impact of the oil industry.
In those circumstances, it is highly improbable that Shetland will be prepared to go along with these arrangements. We might be confronted with the absurd situation of the Shetland islanders regarding an independent Scotland as a threat to their proper control of their own affairs. Therefore, on simple, practical grounds, the only effect of the amendment would be to polarise the issue between Scotland and the Shetlands, and that could do no good for anyone.
I hope that the amendment will not be accepted. It is absurd. It has at least demonstrated that the Scottish National Party is after not devolution but independence based upon the theft of United Kingdom oil.

Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked me some questions. I do not want to take up very much time because I think that we are, perhaps, guilty of overkill in spending so much time on the amendment when the view of the Committee is predictable. I see the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) nodding his head. I had him in mind in making those comments.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian asked some questions about the

Shetland Islands. His questions related to fishing, agriculture and oil. I do not quite understand the point that he was developing because fishing, except in the limited sense of salmon and fresh-water fishing, is not devolved. Nor is agriculture, energy or, for that matter, ports. I have attempted to set out, with some care, the answers to these questions in my correspondence with the Shetland County Council.

That was the substance of the points raised by my hon. Friend, who I see has just re-entered the Chamber. I do not wish to be discourteous to him so I will say that I have been dealing with the points that he raised concerning freshwater fishing, agriculture and oil. None of these matters is devolved. The amendment would devolve them, it is true, but the points my hon. Friend was putting forward would arise on the Bill passing without this amendment.

I have given up the task of trying to explain to my hon. Friend the functions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It would be a mercy on my part to spare the Committee any further explanation.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes, 14, Noes 289.

Division No. 65]
AYES
[7.50 p.m.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Reid, George
Watt, Hamish


Crawford, Douglas
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wigley, Dafydd


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Sillars, James



Henderson, Douglas
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


MacCormick, Iain
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Mr. Gordon Wilson and


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thompson, George
Mr. Andrew Welsh.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carmichael, Neil


Allaun, Frank
Boardman, H.
Clemitson, Ivor


Anderson, Donald
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Coleman, Donald


Armstrong, Ernest
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Cope, John


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Bradford, Rev Robert
Corbett, Robin


Atkinson, Norman
Bradley, Tom
Costain, A. P.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brittan, Leon
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)


Banks, Robert
Brotherton, Michael
Crawshaw, Richard


Bates, Alf
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)


Bean, R. E.
Buchan, Norman
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Beith, A. J.
Buchanan, Richard
Dalyell, Tam


Bell, Ronald
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Budgen, Nick
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Deakins, Eric


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Benyon, W.
Campbell, Ian
Dempsey, James


Bidwell, Sydney
Canavan, Dennis
Doig, Peter


Biffen, John
Cant, R. B.
Dormand, J. D.


Bishop. Rt Hon Edward
Carlisle, Mark
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James




Dunnett, Jack
Knox, David
Rathbone, Tim


Dykes, Hugh
Lamond, James
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Edge, Geoff
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lawrence, Ivan
Rhodes James, R.


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lee, John
Richardson, Miss Jo


English, Michael
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Litterick, Tom
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lloyd, Ian
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Loveridge, John
Roderick, Caerwyn


Farr, John
Loyden, Eddie
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Faulds, Andrew
Luard, Evan
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rooker, J. W.


Flannery, Martin
McCartney, Hugh
Rose, Paul B.


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
McCrindle, Robert
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McCusker, H.
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Ford, Ben
McElhone, Frank
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Forman, Nigel
Macfarlane, Neil
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Sever, John


Freud Clement
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Shepherd, Colin


Fry, Peter
Mackintosh, John P.
Silverman, Julius


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Maclennan, Robert
Silvester, Fred


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sims, Roger


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Sinclair, Sir George


Garrett, W. E.(Wallsend)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Skinner, Dennis


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Madden, Max
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Ginsburg, David
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Snape, Peter


Golding, John
Marten, Neil
Spearing, Nigel


Gourlay, Harry
Mather, Carol
Spriggs, Leslie


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mawby, Ray
Sproat, Iain


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stallard, A. W.


Graham, Ted
Maynard, Miss Joan
Steel, Rt Hon David


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Meacher, Michael
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mendelson, John
Stoddart, David


Gray, Hamish
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Stokes, John


Grieve, Percy
Miscampbell, Norman
Stott, Roger


Griffiths, Eldon
Miscampbell, Norman
Stradling Thomas, J.


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mitchell, Austin
Strang, Gavin


Grist, Ian
Moate, Roger
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Hardy, Peter
Molloy, William
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Molyneaux, James
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Monro, Hector
Tebbit, Norman


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Montgomery, Fergus



Haselhurst, Alan
Morgan, Geraint
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hawkins, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hayhoe, Barney
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Tierney, Sydney


Heseltine, Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Torney, Tom


Holland, Philip
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Townsend, Cyril D.


Hooley, Frank
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Tuck, Raphael


Hooson, Emlyn
Nelson, Anthony
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Noble, Mike
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Orbach, Maurice
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Huckfield, Les
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Watkins, David


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ovenden, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Weetch, Ken


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Wells, John


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
White, James (Pollok)


Hunter, Adam
Page, Richard (Workington)
Whitlock, William


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pardoe, John
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Park, George
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Parker, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Parkinson, Cecil
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Parry, Robert
Woodall, Alec


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Woof, Robert


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pavitt, Laurie
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Judd, Frank
Pendry, Tom
Young, David (Bolton E)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Penhaligon, David
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Kerr, Russell
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Younger, Hon George


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Price, David (Eastleigh)



King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Radice, Giles
Mr. James Hamilton and


Kinnock, Neil
Raison, Timothy
Mr. James Tinn.


Knight, Mrs Jill

Question accordingly negatived.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. George Reid: I beg to move Amendment No. 468, in page 48, line 4, at end insert—

'GROUP 1D (Broadcasting)

Radio and television broadcasting.'

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 469, in page 48, line 4, at end insert—

'GROUP 1E (The Arts)

Finance of Scottish Arts Council. Fixing and disbursement of grants.'

No. 479, in page 48, leave out line 8.

Mr. Reid: This should be a good amendment for the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). It should also raise still further the abnormally high blood pressure about devolution shown by the hon. Members for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) and Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), because I admit at once that devolved broadcasting in Scotland would cost more than the present system. Also—I would concede this point to the hon. Members if they were here—devolved broadcasting could tend to become more provincial or insular. Why, then, do we propose this amendment? There are two basic reasons.
First, if the Scottish National Party is asking that the economics of oil be devolved, that the £4,000 million oil wealth of our country should go to the Scots, we cannot dodge the fact that broadcasting, if devolved, would cost more. Secondly, we meet right on the nose the basic situation that we could face a Sunday Post-type broadcasting for Scotland unless we had a proper independent Scots broadcasting authority.
Scotland is a difficult country in which to broadcast. We have a difficult terrain in terms of UHF and VHF signals. Our lochs and mountains do not fit a television signal. We do not have, as England does, a country in which broadcast signals reach large parts of the population. Our base for advertising and licence fees is small.
The SNP concedes that the difference in cost between the present quality of programmes and the same service pro-

vided by a separate Scots broadcasting authority would probably be between £7 million and £9 million. There is also the question of the Annan Report. If my information is correct, the Annan Committee will not report until 1981, and the BBC charter and the licences of the existing ITV companies will be extended until then. It is foolish of anyone to assume that a Scots Assembly will sit idly by for the next two years until Annan is decided in London.
There are three reasons for this. First, the Assembly itself will determine whether its proceedings should be broadcast. That means that the Assembly will have a relationship with the IBA and the BBC north of the border. Secondly, as the Bill states, Members of the Assembly will receive copies of the separate broadcasting reports as and when they are published. Thirdly, the Assembly will have to look at those areas of Scotland which do not at present receive a proper television broadcasting signal—the "white" spots, as we call them, in Galloway and the Highlands, where there is no proper BBC and IBA television coverage.
All of us will concede, as Scots Members that something is wrong with broadcasting north of the border. Much of the present output is provincial and insular. Many of our top programmes hold up the standards of the English Home Counties as desirable. These programmes deal with English architects, English lawyers and English public relations men. These are held up in Scotland, in the family home, through television, as being desirable standards to aim at. That is wrong.
Surely, from the situation on Clyde-side, for example, many a family programme could be produced for the Scots public about the ordinary man who works in Clydeside shipbuilding, about his problems and his family's problems, and there would thereby be greater understanding of Scotland's relationships to the United Kingdom in the great crises of the postwar period.
Secondly, there are problems in terms of Scots broadcasting as set up in the mid-1950s and the mid-1960s. Roy Thomson went on record as saying that in Scottish Television he had a licence to print money. It was not just that. He had licence to take on board people at senior management level with no real


sense of the needs and necessities of Scots broadcasting. In the United States, one often finds senior television cameramen clutching their hearts as they trundle their cameras across the floor because they have been passed over for better things. Much the same is true of Scots television. People want to be big fish in a small pool. Our problem is that as long as it is the BBC or the IBA paying the Scots cheques or making up the schedules, Scots broadcasting will inevitably remain provincial and insular.
I am therefore suggesting that we and the Assembly set up a Scots broadcasting commission, which would control licensing north of the border and simultaneously set broadcasting standards and point the way in which television and radio should be heading. I am not suggesting that we should have totally separate broadcasting services, because only a sovereign Parliament can decide the allocation of frequencies, for example, and that will have to wait until the Scots people decide themselves to go totally independent.
I congratulate Mr. Alastair Hetherington, of BBC Scotland, who has pointed out the basic problem that as long as programme schedules are made up in London Scots broadcasting will remain rather poor. Scots programmes will be tucked away at the bottom end of the day's schedule and appear on our screens at 11 o'clock or 11.30.
I would prefer, given the Assembly, that if "World in Action" on ITV is dealing with the major problem of, say, the situation in Liverpool Docks, a Scots programme could be slotted in at that time. If BBC "Panorama" is dealing with a major problem, say, London and race relations—that is not a particularly Scots problem at present—and if the programme controller wishes to slot in a Scots programme at that time, he should be able to do so.
Perhaps I can tell the House a short story that is purely personal. When I worked for Granada I had good budgets, good teams and time. When I went back to Scotland I found myself in Shetland, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), having to make programmes about the Shetland fishermen or about bird-watching in Shetland in two days, whether the mist was down or not. In

terms of the narrow budgets available to STV, one had to go and film in those conditions. As a result, we produced, of necessity, provincial and rather bad programmes.
I am suggesting that if STV were an amalgam of the Scots companies, and if STV, Grampian and Border Television came together as one Scottish ITV company, we would have an advertising base roughly comparable with that of Yorkshire at present. Such a company could begin to programme across the British network and the time available for Scots programmes, and for programmes on Shetland, would be roughly equivalent to that obtainable by "World in Action" producers. The problem at present is that north of the border we try to produce national programmes with roughly regional facilities.
I am therefore saying that, given a Scots Assembly and given the fact that the Annan Commission will not be reporting within the next three years, the Assembly itself will take a few decisions on this subject.
It would be wrong not to concede that broadcasting north of the border will cost more. It is difficult to discover the appropriate figures from STV or BBC Scotland because there are many cross-fertilisations in terms of programme budgets. But I believe that the shortfall for broadcasting in Scotland might be between £7 million and £9 million, although it could be £5 or £6 million either way, to produce in Scotland the same quality and standard of broadcasting that we have now.
We in Scotland, through the Assembly, must concede that our programmes will not necessarily be run on the present duo-poly of the British system, which has commercial standards plus public service standards. Perhaps, like Norway or Ireland, we should consider a different broadcasting standard.
The SNP itself has suggested that there should be established a Scottish Broadcasting Commission, roughly analogous to the University Grants Committee, which would hold a position midway between the Treasury and broadcasters. This could avoid the obvious problem that one could not put money into the pocket of the broadcaster without putting the broadcaster into the pocket of the


politician. Perhaps underneath the Scottish broadcasting commission we should have a public service—BBC-1 and BBC-2 and a commercially financed STV.

Mr. Grimond: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but I am not certain about his proposals to amalgamate STV, Grampian and Border Television, because there is a great deal of difference between the North of Scotland and the Central Belt. I would have thought there was a case for keeping those two separate contracting companies. I agree that it would mean that both would be rather small, but is the hon. Gentleman really convinced that Scottish broadcasting would be improved if they were amalgamated?

Mr. Reid: I accept immediately that Grampian Television has done a marvellous job in terms of relating itself to and creating programmes for the Aberdeen area. I am not suggesting that there should be an STV take-over of ITV north of the border. I suggest that there should be a different confederal company north of the border, which, by taking in all three elements, would have an advertising base comparable to Yorkshire Television. If that happened, we could give our producers the time which they do not have at present because they are producing national services with fairly regional facilities.
8.15 p.m.
It would be quite wrong to suggest that the SNP or the Labour Party—because it has put very much the same evidence to the Annan Commission—wants to see STV take over Grampian and Border. One of the things that Mr. Hetherington has done is to prove that with small facilities one can create new broadcasting communities. I congratulate him on what he has done for Shetland with Radio Shetland and for Orkney with Radio Orkney. [Interruption.] The Tories chortle on about this, but the fact remains that Mr. Hetherington created in Lerwick a service of two hours a day with one producer and one secretary. He has created in Kirkwall a service for the people of Orkney, with one producer and one secretary. I hope that very shortly he will do the same thing in the Western Isles.
It is sad that a political party in this House should condemn the controller of BBC Scotland for looking at the Scots broadcasting situation and, as the wife of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West said in evidence to the Annan Commission, establishing a broadcasting authority north of the border which is distinctive from that of the present British State.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: There was no question of our criticising in any way the splendid radio service in Orkney and Shetland, of which we approve.

Mr. Reid: I am grateful for that.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I am not clear about the hon. Gentleman's argument for having a commercial station for Scotland with outposts in the various areas. He has rightly praised the Scottish controller of the BBC, Mr. Hetherington. Why should the present situation be substantially altered, for good or bad, by the transference of legislative authority to the Assembly?

Mr. Reid: I congratulated the chairman of BBC Scotland for all that he has done, despite the present United Kingdom financial structure. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, Mr. Hetherington has had a difficult battle with the BBC management down south to get through his overspend, because there are cross-book entries at present. I am suggesting that if one wants to create a distinctive new form of Scots broadcasting one would be better able to do it if backed by an Assembly which looked at the needs of the Scots people.
No one in the SNP is for a moment suggesting that we should take away "Coronation Street" from the average Scots viewer. There is no way in which any practising politician in Scotland could conceivably attempt to conceal the fact that a separate Scots broadcasting system will mean a licence fee of about £35. The United Kingdom structure, of course, will not allow hypothecation of revenues. Everything that is raised under the existing broadcasting structure north of the border has to enter the great maw of the United Kingdom Treasury. I do not see why that should be so. I do not see


why such moneys should not be used to create a capital base for transmitters and why the Treasury itself should not provide the transmitter services or the camera services inside the duopoly of public service and commercially based licensing. That is where we could square the difference of between £7 and £9 million to which I referred earlier.

Mr. Dalyell: I am told that a separate Scottish broadcasting system along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman would mean a TV licence of £60 per set. Can the hon. Gentleman deny that? He may well deny it. But that is the figure that I have been given and I should like him to comment on it.

Mr. Reid: I deny that. I think that £60 is double what the fee might be. What I am trying to work my way through is the difficult situation of the SNP having to concede that broadcasting north of the border, being totally devolved, will cost a great deal more. Nevertheless, £60 is far too high. I would think that £32 or £33 is about right.
We must not think of the present United Kingdom structure of financing broadcasting as being parallel to that north of the border. We must not think of the present duopoly continuing. We in the SNP are suggesting that there might be a single Scots broadcasting commission which could look at priorities north of the border. Neither we nor the Labour Party—which gave evidence to the Annan Committee along these lines—believe in the fourth channel. We are concerned with the spread of broadcasting rather than more broadcasting. We are concerned with filling the white spots in television rather than creating a blanket service. We need a complete commitment to the view that those people in Galloway or the Western Isles who are without a service at present should have one through BBC Scotland.
The Committee will know that Scottish Television used to be housed in the Theatre Royal in Glasgow, and the Scottish Opera is there at present. All hon. Members will have heard the arguments from the Government Benches that we have a fine broadcasting service. There is a mood of self-congratulation on the Labour side. Labour Members believe that everything is wonderful in broadcasting in Britain. They claim that in

this country at least we have the best broadcasting service in the world.
Let me tell the Committee a story. The Glasgow Opera had a new Italian tenor who said publicly at the end of his first concert that he had never before had so many curtain calls. He said that Gigli and Caruso received only five or six encores, but that he had received eight. A little Scots voice piped up from the balcony "Aye, and ye will keep getting them until ye get it right." That is basically the argument that we in the SNP are putting to the Government.

Mr. John Smith: I have listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman's arguments. As I read it, the amendment gives the Scottish Assembly and Executive devolved powers for radio and television broadcasting, excluding the allocation of frequencies. Can he explain the relationship between the transfer of legislative and executive powers and a licence fee which is gathered by the United Kingdom Government?

Mr. Reid: I must concede immediately to the Minister. As I said before, perhaps my amendment is not properly drafted. I accept that allocation of frequency is a matter for a sovereign Parliament dealing with other sovereign Parliaments. Nevertheless, this is a useful opportunity to debate broadcasting north of the border.
Secondly, the Minister himself should contact the Home Office and point out that if it is right for the Home Office to put off a report on the Annan Committee for another three years it would be crazy for anyone to think that the Scottish Assembly will wait around for another three years for London to decide what will happen to Scottish broadcasting. The Assembly will decide whether to broadcast its proceedings—and I hope it will —whether its committees will be broadcast and whether, for example, Radio Clyde will extend its services to Oban and Ayr. The Minister is foolish if he assumes that when proceedings in the Scottish Assembly are being broadcast, its members will leave all these things to London to decide.

Mr. John Smith: I am not assuming anything. I am seeking elucidation. If this amendment is simply an attempt to have a debate about broadcasting in Scotland, I understand. However, I am


taking the amendment at its face value as a serious attempt to amend the Bill. The licence fees are gathered by the United Kingdom Government. I would be grateful if the hon. Member would explain to me what he intends. I am simply seeking information.

Mr. Reid: We are under the guillotime and many financial clauses in the Bill have not been debated. The basic financial structure of the Assembly has not been debated at all.
When the Minister was at university in Glasgow with me we were both fairly active in the Labour student movement at that time. There we discussed the relationship between central Government and Scotland in terms of devolved-expenditure. That has never been discussed in this Bill.
I am in great difficulties trying to juxtapose this matter with proposals for a Scottish Treasury. All we are doing in this debate is putting up our own arguments on both sides in the post-imperial failure of the British State. I do not think that the Bill is workable. The Minister is trying to draft a federal relationship in the British Isles within a unitary State. To ask me, therefore, to justify my remarks in terms of the measure is difficult.

Mr. Timothy Raison: The hon. Member has said, in effect, that this debate is a farce. Would it not be much better for him to withdraw his amendment and allow us to get on with the debate on universities, which has much more substance?

Mr. Reid: I shall conclude my remarks very quickly. It is not unreasonable for the SNP to try to get a debate on broadcasting. If anybody thinks that the SNP simply wants to create a more Scottish broadcasting system he underestimates and misunderstands what our party is about. Most of us come from an apolitical situation of wanting a more international Scotland, rather than a more Sunday Post Scotland.
Anyone who concludes that we will make broadcasting north of the border 100 per cent. Scottish is wrong. England makes some of the best television programmes in the world and these will continue to be screened in Scotland. All we

want is the same freedom for television producers as there is for people in economics, social workers and so on. In broadcasting, as in politics, as long as London signs the cheques and makes up the schedules, Scotland will remain provincial.

The First Deputy Chairman: May I make an official contribution to the debate by indicating that the guillotine will fall on this and other amendments at 9 p.m. I hope that that will have some effect on the length of the speeches.

Mr. Craigen: I agree with the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) that we want to improve the quality of television and radio in Scotland, but I wonder whether this amendment is the best way to achieve that aim.
The hon. Gentleman zig-zagged throughout his case. Until he said so explicitly I had not appreciated that he was not seeking a separate broadcasting set-up in Scotland but one in which the United Kingdom would be prepared to pay the high capital costs of servicing Scotland's outlying areas, with Scotland and its Assembly being concerned in the administration and running of television and radio programmes.
It was interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to Roy Thomson. I read Roy Thomson's autobiography and what came through to me was that when he sought to establish Scottish Television there was a great lack of interest among many Scottish organisations in subscribing to such a company.
I feel that there is a need for the Government to take early action on some of the Annan recommendations. However, I wonder how quickly the Scottish Assembly when set up would be able to get down to the task of looking at the adequacy of TV and radio programmes within the country.
The hon. Gentleman might have told us a little more, had time permitted, about commercial television and how the advertising base would be strengthened. He did not answer to my satisfaction the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) about the cost of the licence fee in Scotland. I do not know about the people in London writing cheques, but certainly the people in Scotland would have to


write pretty large cheques if they were to pay the licence fees to sustain either a separate television authority or an authority with such decentralised powers as I suspect the hon. Gentleman envisages.

8.30 p.m.

Mr Reid: The hon. Gentleman must accept that he is either a United Kingdom Treasury man who believes that all money raised from broadcasting north of the border should go into the English Treasury or he is not. I believe that there is about £7 million to £8 million raised from broadcasting which could go back into providing the services and which could close the gap in providing the more expensive services. Has the hon. Gentleman ever watched programmes on Saturday afternoon and, although wishing to see a good "B" movie, found himself on both channels having to watch some football programme? Perhaps a Scottish broadcasting commission, if we do not have to live with British standards, would allow differentiation and freedom of choice.

Mr. Craigen: I do not get much time to watch television on Saturdays, but I know that some of my enthusiastic football friends prefer to watch some of the football programmes produced down south rather than some of the Scottish programmes.
As for my being a United Kingdom Treasury man, that is not the case. I want to see an improvement in the quality of television in the United Kingdom as a whole. I took part in the debate on the Annan proposals, and what concerns me about television in the United Kingdom generally is the extent to which we seem to depend on American television. I am also concerned about insularity. I have watched television programmes in Norway and Sweden—nations which SNP Members invariably quote as superior models of the small State. I was surprised at the extent to which their television services drew on the United States and the United Kingdom output. Those countries appeared to be far more international in their approach than is the case here.
Since the Chair has called for brevity, I conclude by saying that the approach in this amendment is not the best way to obtain greater decentralisation in run-

ning our television and radio programmes. I shall vote against the amendment.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I shall try to be as brief as I can on this subject, considering that there are other subjects which, because of the guillotine, the Committee will not reach at all.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Shocking!

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) was nationalistic in his reference to English presentation of programmes, as though the BBC in London were not well staffed indeed by people from Scotland.

Mr. Reid: rose—

Mr. Fletcher: I am very limited in time and the hon. Gentleman has already had a good share of it.
The question is whether broadcasting would be improved if the amendment were passed and responsibility for broadcasting moved towards the Scottish Assembly. Would that benefit the listeners and viewers in Scotland? We must ask whether people want more political involvement in broadcasting and the arts, because they would get unnecessary meddling by the Assembly in programmes and the content of programmes. Radio and television producers could hardly want that.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire painted a dismal picture when talking of Scottish broadcasting generally. He missed out the success of Radio Clyde, which is probably the most successful commercial radio station in the United Kingdom. I am authorised to quote the managing director of Radio Clyde, Mr. James Gordon, who has said:
We do not think that broadcasting should be devolved to a Scottish Assembly. In terms of transmitter costs, Scotland benefits considerably from broadcasting being organised and financed on a UK basis. As regards programme content and control over it, most of the television output will still come from south of the Border; and it is better that Scotland continues to be represented in the control that is exercised there, rather than opt out and be forced to treat English television output as though it were from a different country.
Most important of all, the relationship between broadcasters and Government in this country is a very delicate and sophisticated one: it would be difficult to duplicate this


mature relationship if a separate broadcasting authority were to be set up in Scotland.
That is an important statement from someone in a responsible position in Scottish broadcasting.

Mr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman talks about English influence on Scots broadcasting. I hope that, like other Scots Members, he objects to major programmes referring constantly to "the three major parties" in broadcast after broadcast. This clearly disadvantages the SNP.
Radio Clyde is identified with a clear area on Clydeside, it has been fairly brash and has created a good advertising base, but I wonder whether Jimmy Gordon would be as willing to extend his services to Oban and Ayr. I wonder whether that has the backing of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Fletcher: That response shows an extremely partisan attitude and perhaps some professional jealously towards James Gordon, who has been particularly successful in this area.
The hon. Gentleman did not mention the success of Scottish Television with Grampian and Border, who appear to be well thought of in their own areas. I am authorised to quote the managing director of STV, who said:
The IBA could not be responsible to two separate legislative bodies. If the Assembly were able to pass a broadcasting Act for Scotland, they could apply quite different conditions to such vital matters as finance, hours of broadcasting, standards of programmes and advertising, numbers of channels and technical development.
As the spread of transmitters increases throughout Scotland, there is a very substantial capital expenditure being undertaken by the UK system in Scotland.
I should like to quote some more of his comments, but, in view of the shortage of time, I shall not do so. I merely add that these two men, who are both running successful stations in Scotland, do not support the amendment.
The problem with Scottish broadcasting may revolve around the BBC and there may be a case for a greater autonomy for BBC Scotland within the organisation as a whole, but it is a nationalised body and is, inevitably, overcentralised. I understand the frustrations of BBC staff in Scotland and no

doubt similar frustrations are felt by the same sort of people in Wales and the English regions, but organisational problems within the BBC can hardly be a reason for changing the whole system of government in Great Britain. The question is, therefore, whether the BBC, STV or Radio Clyde would be freer to produce programmes to suit listeners and viewers in Scotland if broadcasting were devolved. I contend that the chances are that the opposite would be the case.
I make two other points about broadcasting. Obviously, the major BBC and ITV networks are fully and freely available in Scotland as in the rest of the United Kingdom. The popularity of network programmes—the hon. Gentleman referred to this—and regional programmes emanating from Bristol and Manchester, for example, knows no physical or political boundaries throughout Britain. I should not advise anyone, politician or broadcaster, to stand between Scottish viewers and their favourite programmes, whether it is "Play of the Month", "Match of the Day" or, as the hon. Gentleman said, "Coronation Street". It might even be "Today in Parliament". However, that is what the amendment is about.
There is the question of hiving off television and broadcasting to an Assembly. We must be talking of hiving off if we are to take the amendment seriously. That must be so, unless yet again the SNP is seeking some sort of authority without responsibility—in other words, looking for a façade of independence in broadcasting.
The bulk of the programmes originate outside Scotland and very few people in Scotland would want to change that. To most viewers in Scotland a BBC programme is a BBC programme from wherever it comes. The same applies to those who watch programmes emanating from the ITV network.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the cost of television licences. That is a matter that cannot be made too clear to those who might support the amendment, or those in Scotland who think that magically they will enjoy anything like the same standard of programme. The information that I have about the cost of a television licence in Scotland if there were any prospects of achieving the same


standard of programme is that it would be not £60 or £70 but £120. That is the equivalent figure that I have been quoted. It is clearly a substantial figure.

Mr. Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman identify the source of his information?

Mr. Fletcher: I cannot allow another intervention.

Mr. Reid: Tell us the source of your information.

Mr. Fletcher: If the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, the source is quite obvious. That is the figure that I have been quoted, and it is a serious figure. It does not seem ridiculous if we consider the situation that would apply in Scotland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): I can help the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) with the source of the information. The source is Mr. John Gray, BBC Scotland's chief assistant, radio, who told an Edinburgh business club that the cost of a tartan television licence would be £120 in a separate Scotland.

Mr. Fletcher: I am sure that yet again the Committee is grateful to the Under-Secretary of State in this debate, as in other debates. That would be the cost of a television licence if an attempt were made to maintain anything like present day standards. There is no guarantee that even with that sort of licence fee it would be possible to produce in Scotland the standard of radio and television programme that we now enjoy throughout the United Kingdom.
Surely broadcasting is one subject in respect of which it may be said that the further away politicians are from the programme producers the better it is for the listeners and viewers. The same might be said about the other part of the debate —namely, the arts. It is unfortunate that we should be debating these matters in such a rush. It is unfortunate that a whole list of subjects, including education, agriculture and forestry, will not be considered. I am sure that the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire is as worried about that as everyone else.

Mr. Buchan: Hurry up.

Mr. Fletcher: I tell the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) that I am hurrying up.
As for the arts, there is one thing that we must try to clear up with the assistance of the Minister—namely, the confusion that seems to exist as to what is or is not devolved. I refer to an Answer that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) received from the Department of Education and Science. The most important part of the Answer read:
The arts are a devolved subject in the Scotland Bill, and the precise arrangements for the handling of the arts in Scotland after devolution will be a matter for discussion between the Government, the Scottish Assembly and the Arts Council."—[Official Report, 2nd December 1977; Vol. 940, c. 469.]
Therefore, it is quite clear that it is very difficult this evening for the Committee to be sure what it is talking about at all when discussing the arts unless the Minister can make some clarification on that point.
8.45 p.m.
Nevertheless, I contend that the argument about the arts is not seriously different from the argument about broadcasting. Whether or not one supports the idea of an opera house in Edinburgh or a football stadium in Glasgow—I happen to support both—or anything else, the fact that neither exists at present is not because there has been no devolution in this context. The reasons lie entirely in Scotland, particularly on the former proposition. The Committee will understand if I do not elaborate on the reason why that has not come about.

Mr. Hector Monro: The third amendment under discussion concerns recreation. Will my hon. Friend press the Minister about the relationship between the Sports Council and the Scottish Sports Council in relation to the Royal Charter, which clearly gives responsibility for certain aspects to the Sports Council for the British Isles?

Mr. Fletcher: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am sure that the Minister of State was listening most attentively and will try to include a reply later.
Yesterday and in other debates the Committee has recognised the increase in


Scottish Office activities that has taken place over the years in the shift of responsibilities to the Secretary of State. The fact that broadcasting and the arts have not been transferred previously, by successive Governments—as they could have been and, I am sure, as they would have been had the demand and desire existed —indicates that over the years Governments have thought better. We believe that that has been the right decision. Therefore, we cannot in any way support the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: The point made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State must be borne in mind. Mr. John Gray has stated, with the authority that he holds in his position in Edinburgh, that the television licence would cost £120.
Coupled with that, there is the question of frequencies. Mr. Gray has said,
We'd have to go to Geneva for allocation of frequencies. If we went as an independent nation and as a separate independent unit it's unlikely that we'd get the amount of frequencies we'd require. We'd have technical limitations and the cost of transmitters would be astronomical.
The licence income from Scotland is between £14 and £15 million a year and it's cost £17 million to provide TV and radio. There's a shortfall of £2 million, and between £6 million and £7 million of the licence revenue comes back to Scotland for the TV and radio we produce here.
Are those the facts of the situation? If they are, there are financial consequences to any of the ideas put forward by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid).

Mr. John Smith: I should like to make a brief intervention now to answer a question put by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher). First, concerning the amendment, I am not quite sure as to what its status is. The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) said at one stage that it was to initiate a debate on broadcasting. There are some obvious problems about it, to some of which he referred. The hon. Member conceded, I think, that the question of frequencies would have to be a matter for the United Kingdom Government and the United Kingdom Parliament. That is so. It is stressed repeatedly in the Annan Report that that would have to be the position.
However, what I must confess I am not very clear about is the relationship of the Scottish Administration and the Assembly, if they dealt with radio and television broadcasting, when we have a financial structure based upon a United Kingdom licence. I do not think that I should recommend to the Committee that we could accept the amendment until there is more clarification on that point.
The Government are considering the Annan Report on the future of broadcasting. It is rather foolish to forecast that it will take three years for any proposals to be put forward. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already announced that he hopes to publish his proposals in the form of a White Paper. The Committee knows that some of the questions relating to broadcasting in Scotland, and in Wales and Northern Ireland, were considered by the Annan Committee. Its recommendations were probably against the devolution of responsibility for these matters to the Assemblies in Scotland and in Wales.
The arts are devolved as a subject to the Scottish Assembly, but there is the complication that the Arts Council of Great Britain is a Royal chartered body. I think that the Sports Council falls into the same category.
If the Scottish Administration chose to do so, in the case of the arts it could continue to operate through the existing machinery. The Arts Council of Great Britain could consider, in consultation with the Assembly and Administration, what adjustment should be made to its charter to meet the wishes of the Scottish Executive. Then, it is assumed, the Arts Council of Great Britain would apply to the Privy Council for any necessary amendments to its constitution to be made, although, under the Bill, the Assembly could legislate to amend the charter only after having obtained Crown consent. That is the procedure for dealing with Royal Charter bodies.
What is important is that the question how the Scottish Administration wishes to deal with the arts should be discussed between it, the Government and the Arts Council of Great Britain, before there are changes. It seems to me to be sensible and practical before making any changes we should ascertain the wishes of the Assembly and Administration.
For the reasons I have given, I cannot recommend acceptance of the amendment, which is rather inchoate.

Mr. Monro: The Committee accepts that the SNP amendment has been demolished, for a whole host of reasons.
I believe that broadcasting should be retained as it is, but I also hope that, finance permitting, all viewers in Scotland will soon be able to see Scottish BBC rather than receiving BBC transmissions from Newcastle, as we do in Dumfries and Galloway. I should like the BBC and Border Television to give a firm assurance that the whole of Scotland, including Dumfries and Galloway, will be able to watch all the World Cup matches this summer.
The Minister has helpfully replied on the subject of the Arts Council, but I press him to think in greater depth about the Sports Council as opposed to the Scottish Sports Council. The Sports Council has responsibility in Great Britain for such matters as overseas events and the Olympic Games. That responsibility is specifically written into its Royal Charter. When our sportsmen and women are performing for Great Britain, as opposed to Scotland, as would happen on most occasions, and particularly at such events as the Commonwealth Games, there could be severe friction if the responsibility is not clarified. I do not want to see Royal Charters, which have been set up very carefully, after much thought, chopped and changed without the best of reasons.
To sum up, I hope that in Dumfries and Galloway we can have full coverage of programmes we want to see and that the Government will carefully examine the future of Royal Charters.

Mr. Buchan: I shall be brief, because I know that everyone wants at least the university amendment to be moved tonight if possible.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) for having come in late during this debate. I had not realised that it had started.
As I understand it, the heavy cost of engineering transmission and so on, will be borne by the Treasury and only the rest of the cost will be borne within Scotland. Only on that basis do we

arrive at a figure of about £30 for the licence. The evidence from John Gray and from engineers and others to whom I have spoken suggests that it might be three times that amount if we had a totally self-financed Scotland. The alternative is a completely commercial structure. I hope that the Scottish people will reject that, and I am disappointed to hear that that view is held by the SNP.
I move to a second matter. The Labour Party evidence in Scotland referred to a single structure for commercial television, leaving the way open for local opting out, but basically in order to strengthen the quality of television in Scotland, which has been extremely inferior.
Another matter that I wish to raise is that, if we are to have the kind of Scotland that we all want, I hope that we shall not refer, as the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire did, to "the person" who led the evidence for the Scottish Labour Party. That was my wife. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had referred to her as Janey Buchan instead of
the wife of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West".
One of the worst things in a small country is that people in public life are not seen as persons in their own right. The same would have applied if the hon. Gentleman had got on to the Scottish Arts Council, of which my wife is a member. I take great exception to this attitude on the part of the hon. Gentleman. We have distinct attitudes and distinct public postures in relation to political and social affairs in Scotland. It is an example of a male chauvinist and dreadfully Scottish attitude that it should have come out in that form.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: I wish to comment on the Minister's reply in relation to the Arts Council. Before doing so, however, I should say that I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid), a great believer in local autonomy, say that he was anxious to become a unionist and to unite the three existing television networks into a single one, despite the fact that two of them clearly do not wish to be united in this way. It was a curious inversion of the normal approach of the SNP.

Mr. Reid: I spoke about a confederal structure which would retain broadcasting in Aberdeen and the Borders but allow the Scottish whole to be comparable with Yorkshire in terms of advertising rates.

Mr. Rifkind: It would be interesting if the hon. Gentleman applied to the United Kingdom the degree of flexibility that he appears to be willing to give to broadcasting. I had not realised that con-federalism was now the policy of the SNP. I can understand the "con" part, but federalism seems a new development. The fact remains that it is a novel approach, and the smile of the hon. Gentleman may indicate his own attitude to the matter.
I want to question the Minister about his unsatisfactory reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher). My hon. Friend quoted a reply which I had received from the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science on 2nd December of last year about responsibility for the arts, especially the Arts Council. The Minister made a very unsatisfactory and confused response.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman should understand that, following devolution, because of the effect of the Bill the existing administrative and statutory functions exercised by the Secretary of State for Education and Science in relation to the arts in Scotland will be transferred to a Scottish Secretary, and the devolved Administration will be able to develop its own policy for the financial support of the arts, deciding how much of the block fund should be devoted to the arts and whether to dispense the financial support directly itself or whether to operate through the Arts Council of Great Britain or its subsidiary, the Scottish Arts Council. That is an effective transfer of responsibility. However, the Royal Charter would require further consideration.

Mr. Rifkind: I had understood that there was a transfer of responsibility, and undoubtedly both the White Paper and the schedule to the Bill imply that such a transfer of responsibility will take place. But what the Minister said is in conflict with the reply from the Minister at the Department of Education and Science. In his reply, the Minister said nothing about

charters. He said that the precise arrangements for the handling of the arts in Scotland after devolution would be a matter for discussion between the Government, the Scottish Assembly and the Arts Council. He did not refer specifically to the Royal Charter. He spoke of arrangements for the handling of the arts If the Government are to be entitled to take part in discussion of these matters, presumably the Government, this House and the United Kingdom as a whole will retain some responsibility for arts matters in Scotland.
It would have been more appropriate if the Government had come to a conclusion on this matter before publishing the Bill. They said that this was a matter on which they wanted to take the view of the Scottish Administration. They have not applied that criterion to every other matter which is to be devolved to the Scottish Assembly. The Government have come to a conclusion, they have put their conclusion in the Bill, and they have been prepared to Whip their supporters to ensure the acceptance of their proposal.
On this one matter the Government say that they are showing great flexibility. I suggest that all that they are doing is creating enormous confusion for the Arts Council in Scotland, which does not know whether its relationship is with the Government, the Scottish Assembly or a combination of the two. It will be a considerable time before that problem can be clarified.
We know that the Assembly will not start functioning for another year or so and that the Arts Council will not be a priority that the Assembly will want to consider as soon as it is established. The Scottish Arts Council has had a history—

It being Nine o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution [22nd November], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Nine o'clock.

Amendments made:

No. 566, in page 51, line 12, at beginning insert:
'The following, except in relation to the provision of financial assistance for the execution of works for the benefit of the fishing industry:'.

No. 567, in page 52, line 46, leave out from 'Secretary' to 'or' in line 47.

No. 568, in page 53, line 4, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 5.

No. 569, in page 53, line 5, at end insert:
'Paragraphs (a) and (b) above do not apply to a person who is a member of the home civil service of the state or to a person designated under section 64(4) of this Act; and paragraph (c) above does not apply to a person who is employed exclusively for the purpose of a reserved function.'.

No. 570, in page 54, line 43, at end insert:
'() The powers to give directions under section 17(5) and determine questions under section 17(8) are not included so far as exercisable in relation to excepted statutory undertakers in cases where an objection is made by a coast protection authority;'.

No. 571, in page 54, line 48, at end insert:
or held for the purposes of a Scottish Secretary '.

No. 572, in page 56, line 33, at end insert:
'or held for the purposes of a Scottish Secretary'.

No. 573, in page 56, line 36, at end insert:
'The Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 (c.41) section 14(2).

The power to determine questions is not included.'.

No. 574, in page 58, line 30, leave out from 'and' to end of line 32 and insert
'so much of paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 1 as relates to the number of officers and servants of the Forestry Commissioners.'.

No. 575, in page 61, leave out lines 26 and 27.

No. 576, in page 65, line 31, column 2, at beginning insert 'Not'.

No. 577, in page 67, line 5, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'paragraphs 3(1), 7 and'.

No. 578, in page 67, line 13, at end insert—
'() section 16, so far as relating to property held by any person for the purposes of a devolved matter;'.

No. 579, in page 67, line 14, leave out from 'Schedule 2' to end of line 15, and insert paragraph 2'.

No. 580, in page 67, leave out lines 20 and 21.

No. 581, in page 67, line 36, leave out 'Included' and insert 'Not included, except for—
(a) the powers under section 1 to give directions and to make orders; and
(b) the power under section 3(1)(a) to prescribe matters to be taken account of under section 2(2)(b).'

Question put, That this Schedule, as amended, be the Tenth Schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 186, Noes 164.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 11

MATTERS WITHIN POWERS OF SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE BUT NOT WITHIN LEGIS LATIVE COMPETENCE OF ASSEMBLY

Amendment made: No. 503, in page 69, leave out line 5.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Question put, That this Schedule, as amended, be the Eleventh Schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 186, Noes 166.

Division No. 66]
AYES
[9.00 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Campbell, Ian
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)


Anderson, Donald
Canavan, Dennis
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cant, R. B.
Faulds, Andrew


Armstrong, Ernest
Carmichael, Neil
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Clemitson, Ivor
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Flannery, Martin


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Coleman, Donald
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bates, Alf
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bean, R. E.
Corbett, Robin
Ford, Ben


Beith, A. J.
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Forrester, John


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Bidwell, Sydney
Crawford, Douglas
Freud, Clement


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Crawshaw, Richard
Garrett, W. E.(Wallsend)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Boardman, H.
Davies, Clinton (Hackney C)
Ginsburg, David


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Deakins, Eric
Golding, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Gourlay, Harry


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Dempsey, James
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bradley, Tom
Doig, Peter
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dormand, J. D.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dunnett, Jack
Hardy, Peter


Buchan, Norman
Edge, Geoff
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Buchanan, Richard
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
English, Michael
Henderson, Douglas


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Hooley, Frank




Hooson, Emlyn
Mitchell, Austin
Stallard, A. W.


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Molloy, William
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Huckfield, Les
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Stoddart, David


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Murton, Rt Hon Oscar
Stott, Roger


Hunter, Adam
Noble, Mike
Strang, Gavin


Irving. R[...] Hon S. (Dartford)
Orbach, Maurice
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ovenden, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Pardoe, John
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Park, George
Thompson, George


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parker, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Judd, Frank
Parry, Robert
Tierney, Sydney


Kerr, Russell
Pavitt, Laurie
Torney, Tom


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Pendry, Tom
Tuck, Raphael


Kinnock, Neil
Penhaligon, David
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Lamond, James
Radice, Giles
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Watkins, David


Lee, John
Reid, George
Watt, Hamish


Litterick, Tom
Richardson, Miss Jo
Weetch, Ken


Loyden, Eddie
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Welsh, Andrew


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Roderick, Caerwyn
White, James (Pollok)


McCartney, Hugh
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Whitlock, William


MacCormick, Iain
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Wigley, Dafydd


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Rooker, J. W.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


McElhone, Frank
Rose, Paul B.
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Maclennan, Robert
Sandelson, Neville
Woodall, Alec


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Sever, John
Woof, Robert


McNamara, Kevin
Silverman, Julius
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Madden, Max
Skinner, Dennis
Young, David (Bolton E)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)



Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Snape, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Maynard, Miss Joan
Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Ted Graham and


Meacher, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. James Tinn.


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Macfarlane, Neil


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Banks, Robert
Glyn, Dr Alan
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Bell, Ronald
Goodhew, Victor
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Marten, Neil


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mates, Michael


Benyon, W.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mather, Carol


Biffen, John
Gray, Hamish
Maude, Angus


Blaker, Peter
Grieve, Percy
Mawby, Ray


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Griffiths, Eldon
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bottomley, Peter
Grist, Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bradford, Rev Robert
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Miscampbell, Norman


Brittan, Leon
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Moate, Roger


Brotherton, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan
Molyneaux, James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hawkins, Paul
Monro, Hector


Buck, Antony
Hayhoe, Barney
Montgomery, Fergus


Budgen, Nick
Holland, Philip
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hordern, Peter
Morgan, Geraint


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Carlisle, Mark
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Churchill, W. S.
Hurd, Douglas
Nelson, Anthony


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Newton, Tony


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Nott, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jopling, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Clegg, Walter
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Page, John (Harrow West)


Cockroft, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Cope, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Page, Richard (Workington)


Cormack, Patrick
Kimball, Marcus
Parkinson, Cecil


Costain, A. P.
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tam
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Pink, R. Bonner


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Mrs Jill
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lawrence, Ivan
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Farr, John
Lawson, Nigel
Raison, Timothy


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rathbone, Tim


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lloyd, Ian
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Forman, Nigel
Loveridge, John
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Fry, Peter
McCrindle, Robert
Rhodes James, R.


Galbraith. Hon T. G. D.
McCusker, H.
Ridley, Hon Nicholas







Rifkind, Malcolm
Spence, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Sproat, Iain
Walters, Dennis


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Warren, Kenneth


Ross, William (Londonderry)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Weatherill, Bernard


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wells, John


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Stokes, John
Wiggin, Jerry


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Stradling Thomas, J.
Winterton, Nicholas


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Shepherd, Colin
Tebbit, Norman
Younger, Hon George


Silvester, Fred
Temple-Morris, Peter



Sims, Roger
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Sinclair, Sir George
Townsend, Cyril D.
Mr. Jim Lester and


Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Viggers, Peter
Mr. Michael Roberts.

Division No. 67]
AYES
[9.18 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Deakins, Eric
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Anderson, Donald
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dempsey, James
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Armstrong, Ernest
Doig, Peter
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Atkinson, Norman
Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Edge, Geoff
Judd, Frank


Bain, Mrs Margaret
English, Michael
Kerr, Russell


Bates, Alf
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Bean, R. E.
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lamond, James


Beith, A. J.
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Faulds, Andrew
Lee, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Litterick, Tom


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Loyden, Eddie


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Flannery, Martin
Luard, Evan


Boardman, H.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McCartney, Hugh


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Ford, Ben
MacCormick, Iain


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Forrester, John
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bradley, Tom
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
McElhone, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Freud, Clement
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Buchan, Norman
Ginsburg, David
Maclennan, Robert


Buchanan, Richard
Golding, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Gourlay, Harry
McNamara, Kevin


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Graham, Ted
Madden, Max


Campbell, Ian
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Canavan, Dennis
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cant, R. B.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Meacher, Michael


Carmichael, Neil
Hardy, Peter
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Clemitson, Ivor
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mitchell, Austin


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Molloy, William


Coleman, Donald
Henderson, Douglas
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hooley, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Corbett, Robin
Hooson, Emlyn
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Crawford, Douglas
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Noble, Mike


Crawshaw, Richard
Huckfield, Les
Orbach, Maurice


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ovenden, John


Dalyell, Tam
Hunter, Adam
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Davies, Clinton (Hackney C)
Irving Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Pardoe, John




Park, George
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Parker, John
Spearing, Nigel
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Parry, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie
Watkins, David


Pavitt, Laurie
Stallard, A. W.
Watt, Hamish


Pendry, Tom
Steel, Rt Hon David
Weetch, Ken


Penhaligon, David
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Welsh, Andrew


Radice, Giles
Stewart, Rt Hon M (Fulham)
White, James (Pollok)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Stoddart, David
Whitlock, William


Reid, George
Stott, Roger
Wigley, Dafydd


Richardson, Miss Jo
Strang, Gavin
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Roderick, Caerwyn
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Woodall, Alec


Rooker, J. W.
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Woof, Robert


Rose, Paul B.
Thompson, George
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Tierney, Sydney



Sandelson, Neville
Tinn, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sever, John
Torney, Tom
Mr. Peter Snape and


Silverman, Julius
Tuck, Raphael
Mr. Jim Marshall.


Skinner, Dennis






NOES


Adley. Robert
Hawkins, Paul
Page, Richard (Workington)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hayhoe, Barney
Parkinson, Cecil


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Heseltine, Michael
Pattie, Geoffrey


Banks, Robert
Holland, Philip
Pink, R. Bonner


Bell, Ronald
Hordern, Peter
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Benyon, W.
Hurd, Douglas
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Biffen, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Raison, Timothy


Blaker, Peter
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rathbone, Tim


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jopling, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bottomley, Peter
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Kershaw, Anthony
Rhodes James, R.


Brittan, Leon
Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Brotherton, Michael
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Buck, Antony
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Budgen, Nick
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Bulmer, Esmond
Knox, David
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carlisle, Mark
Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Churchill, W. S.
Lawson, Nigel
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shepherd, Colin


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lloyd, Ian
Silvester, Fred


Clegg, Walter
Loveridge, John
Sims, Roger


Cockroft, John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sinclair, Sir George


Cope, John
McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Cormack, Patrick
McCusker, H.
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Costain, A. P.
Macfarlane, Neil
Spence, John


Dykes, Hugh
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Sproat, Iain


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fairgrieve, Russell
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Farr, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Marten, Neil
Stokes, John


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mates, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fox Marcus
Maude, Angus
Tebbit, Norman


Fry, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Temple-Morris, Peter


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D.


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Viggers, Peter


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Miscampbell, Norman
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Moate, Roger
Walters, Dennis


Goodhew, Victor
Molyneaux, James
Warren, Kenneth


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Monro, Hector
Weatherill, Bernard


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Montgomery, Fergus
Wells, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Wiggin, Jerry


Gray, Hamish
Morgan, Geraint
Winterton, Nicholas


Grieve, Percy
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Griffiths, Eldon
Nelson, Anthony
Younger, Hon George


Grist, Ian
Newton, Tony



Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nott, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Peter Morrison and


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Page, John (Harrow West)
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.


Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING DEVOLUTION ISSUES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Francis Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Now that the chopper has fallen and we have completed our business on this section of the Bill, I think it is right to draw the attention of the Committee and the Leader of the House in his absence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—to the fantastic position that we have now reached. We have been debating parts of Schedule 10 and Schedule 11 and we have not even been able to reach Group 3 on education or to deal with the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), which we know the Minister of State wanted to reach.
Quite apart from that, there has been no debate on the proposals for housing, local government, transport, agricultural land or fisheries—and we know what a hot issue that is at the moment. There has been no debate on forestry. We have been unable to debate those subjects, quite apart from Parts II and III of Schedule 10. Nor have we been able to discuss Schedule 11, where the Government made a mistake. I ask hon. Members to note that no fuss or complaint was made about their adjustment of it.
It is a fantastically unsatisfactory situation that when a change as big as that contemplated in the Bill is before us we should have arrangements for dealing with it which prevent us from debating all these particular aspects.
We know that the Government wanted these things. We wanted them, but in the time available it is not possible for these subjects to be debated. It is surely wrong for this Committee to go through with a procedure of this kind because it may well be that some of the aspects that I have mentioned will never be properly debated.
I do not think that is right, and I believe the Leader of the House ought

to note the dissatisfaction which is felt over the way in which we are conducting our business.

The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): Perhaps I can answer the right hon. Gentleman straight away by saying that these protests are not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Hon. Members on all sides of the Committee have received representations from many bodies in Scotland—from professional bodies, universities, groups in industry, agriculture and fishing—regarding this Bill. A great number of views have been expressed. I seek your guidance as to how hon. Members who have received representations and have sought to raise them in amendments and debates can now deal with those points raised by constituents and by innumerable responsible bodies in Scotland. I ask your advice on how we can deal with this.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. There is something which touches more closely upon the House and its future relations with any Scottish Assembly. Not only have we not debated the amendments or discussed whether certain items are suitable for being devolved at all, we have not discussed whether these items, if judged worthy of being devolved, should come into Schedule 10 for legislative devolution, or Schedule 11 for executive devolution. This is an important matter. It is on such issues that areas of conflict will develop in the future.
Nor have we discussed the complications which could arise, because of the proposals in Schedules 10 and 11, for the United Kingdom's international obligations. There could be the possibility of conflict because of the division of authority.
This applies particularly to airports. Section 29 of the Civil Aviation Act has to be amended and we are bringing in new legislation on civil aviation. The Minister has told the Scottish Chambers of Commerce that the Government feel it necessary to be able to over-rule local authorities and civil aviation authorities in cases of major airports. It seems very odd that if the Government take this view of airports, which are sometimes regional as well as central to London, they should at the same time suddenly


decide to lessen this control in Scotland on the grounds that the Assembly is the more appropriate body to deal with it, especially by referring to new legislation not yet decided.
This kind of thing is of constitutional and international importance, yet it has not been discussed at all.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Will it be possible for my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) and myself to raise the amendments concerning forestry and inland waterways at any time during the Report stage? Some of us are not too clear about what happens on Report when a Bill has been taken in Committee on the Floor of the House.

The Chairman: I can answer the question of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) straight away. Matters regarding Report stage are for Mr. Speaker, not for the Chairman. I must point out to hon. Members who have raised points of order that the time taken in raising them is coming out of the time available under the guillotine for the next part of the Bill which, now, is something under one and a half hours.

Mr. Ian Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. This is a matter in which we must look to you for protection. You will notice that the Lord President is not in his place—[Hon. Members: "Where is he?"]—at a time when we have had a crucial Division and when large parts of Schedule 10 and the whole of Schedule 11 have now been guillotined. It seems that the elected Chamber now has no opportunity to debate matters of major constitutional importance. In the absence of the Leader of the House, to whom can Back-Bench Members look for the protection of the reputation of the Committee and of this House?
There is no doubt that the way in which this Bill has been debated is causing consternation and indignation throughout the country. We are invited to approve key parts of the legislation without a debate. This is reminiscent of the Reichstag. We must look to you, Mr. Murton, for guidance, because the Leader of the House is not here. If he were here, we would be addressing these questions to him. If you glance to your right, Mr. Chairman, you

will see hon. Members on the Government Benches sitting smugly and apparently proud—[Hon. Members: "There are not many of them."] No. There are more on the Front Bench than there are behind them.
The point is that if this Committee follows this guillotine procedure, we shall have no opportunity to debate key constitutional measures. This is an outrage and that is why, Mr. Murton your position is so important. The Leader of the House is not here. Would you consider sending a message through one of the learned Clerks asking the Leader of the House to come here to help us in our difficulties?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman addresses his remarks to the wrong quarter. It is not for me to say who shall be present in this Committee. All that the Chair can do is to administer the guillotine which has been passed by the House. That I have done to the best of my ability.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Some of us feel outraged at the way this Government are prepared to sell the unity of the United Kingdom for a mess of "Scot Nat" potage. It appears that it is not possible to protest at this situation, but we should surely be able to do so when we are discussing such vital subjects as these. If that has happened, our proceedings have come to a sorry state.

The Chairman: The hon. Lady can protest but protestations addressed to the Chair will, I am afraid, receive the same answer—namely, that is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Edward Gardner: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns, (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), Mr. Murton. It is not only Scottish bodies which have made representations concerning the provisions of Schedule 10 which are being steam-rollered out of any debate in Committee. My hon. Friend on the Front Bench listed some of the other matters which have been left out of debate. I have received many representations from people employed in the tourist industry who are now concerned about proposals in the Bill which constitute—

The Chairman: I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He is going back to matters which have already been decided as a result of the guillotine. I am sorry, but we cannot go back over past ground.

Mr. Gardner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. These are matters affecting thousands of people and thousand of jobs.

The Chairman: Order. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman what he can do. What I have said is purely factual. We cannot back-track on what has been decided. The House has decided on the guillotine and passed the appropriate business motion. For that reason the Chair can only administer the guillotine in the form in which it was brought before the House.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). Could you ascertain, Mr. Murton, whether there are precedents for items of vital importance which have not been discussed in Committee being open for discussion on Report? I am concerned with the amendments dealing with forestry, but there are many other vital amendments. If these matters cannot be discussed and there are no precedents for that discussion to take place on Report, it is a constitutional outrage.

The Chairman: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) touched on this point earlier, and I remind the Committee of what I said then. I said that matters dealt with on Report are entirely within the prerogative of Mr. Speaker himself and that the Chairman of Ways and Means has no control over them.

Mr. Galbraith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Could you enlighten the Committee whether Mr. Speaker has ever chosen to debate matters which have not been dealt with in Committee? If Mr. Speaker has not called such matters for debate on Report when they have not been debated in Committee, what you are saying, Mr. Murton, is that we shall never have a chance to debate those subjects unless they are raised in the other place—and, thank goodness, there is another place in which to raise them.

9.45 p.m.

The Chairman: Mr. Speaker may well have done so, but that is not a matter for the Chairman.

Mr. Graham Page: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Every time that we have protested in this way about the lack of time left by the guillotine, we have been informed by the Leader of the House—when he is here—that this is a matter for the Business Committee. Has the right hon. Gentleman indicated to you that he intends to move any motion in the Business Committee to extend the time allowed under the guillotine or to bring any such motion before the House?
The only way in which we can ask these questions is by protesting in this way and hoping that the Leader of the House will have the decency to come here to answer the protests and to tell us that he putting down a motion to extend the time under the guillotine.

The Chairman: I can answer the right hon. Gentleman's point of order quite shortly. It is not competent to discuss the Business Committee until its deliberations have been reported.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. The Minister who has been answering debates throughout the Committee stage has indicated that the Government wanted to discuss education as much as did the Opposition. This has not been done because of shortage of time. Is it not possible for the Leader of the House to come here and see the disillusion and concern on both sides of the House that important matters are not being considered properly by the Committee?
I have companies in my constituency that have operations in Scotland and there are operations in the constituency with headquarters in Scotland. They have made representations to me, but many of the issues that they have raised cannot be taken up because the guillotine has fallen.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman knows, because I have already explained, that it is not within the competence of the Chair to comment on any point except the one on which I have already commented, which is that I am responsible for the operation of the guillotine.

Mr. Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. It would be fair for you to point out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) that it


is not within the power of the Business Committee to extend the time under the guillotine. That is a matter for the House.

The Chairman: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Pym: I hope that the points that have been made about the lack of time will be conveyed to the Leader of the House in his absence. What we are doing is not proper scrutiny and the proper parliamentary process is not taking place on this Bill. Under the sharpness of the knives of the guillotine a number of clauses and schedules have been taken at one fell swoop. The Committee will want to make progress on the next stage of the Bill, but feeling in all parts of the House is fantastically strong that this is not a proper parliamentary legislative process and that it should be adjusted.

Mr. Amery: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. As a former Minister of Aviation, I feel that we have ridden a little too lightly over the international obligations that go with the control of airports, which has not been discussed because it falls under the timetable motion. There is scope for serious discussion here, but I appreciate that this cannot take place in the circumstances that we face.
I wonder whether the overriding of powers which are to be devolved in relation to airports does not conflict with the Long Title of the Bill. There is some doubt about this matter and I should welcome your guidance on it.

The Chairman: I replied yesterday to the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) when he raised a similar point of order. I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that we are discussing something that has been overtaken by the guillotine. I repeat what I said last evening—namely, that the Bills progress in one parallel and that one does not conflict with the other. I must also point out that Mr. Speaker gave that ruling.

Mr. Amery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Are we not faced with what might be described as an Alice-in-Wonderland situation, sentence first and verdict afterwards? I do not see how we can proceed when we do not know what it is that we are proceeding about. It is rather difficult. We do not know what the

Civil Aviation Bill will contain, because it has not yet passed through Committee, but we are being asked to take blind, without any debate, a clause that refers to a measure that is now being superseded. Is it not ludicrous, Mr. Murton?

The Chairman: It may be difficult, but we must make the best of it. The right hon. Member for Pavilion asks how we should proceed. I suggest that we proceed by putting the Question in respect of Clause 63—namely, that it should stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 12

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING DEVOLUTION ISSUES

Mr. Leon Brittan: I beg to move Amendment No. 587, in page 71, line 35, at end insert—
'2A. Where it has been determined on the consideration of a devolution issue in any legal proceedings that a Scottish Assembly Act, or any provision of a Scottish Assembly Act is not within the legislative competence of the Assembly or that a matter with respect to which a Scottish Secretary has purported to exercise a power is not a devolved matter, such determination shall not adversely affect or prejudice any person who before such determination has done any act which would but for such determination have been lawful".
When the dust settles on these sorry proceedings and the final word is spoken by the people of Scotland, and if the Bill ever becomes enacted, the sad task that will fall to the courts of this country will be to decide what exactly it means. When the courts are engaged upon that task, which is governed by the schedule, they will not be assisted by the fact that as a result of the operation of the guillotine the Committee spent such a short time considering and sifting the proposals put forward by the Government in an attempt to make some sort of sense out of them. When Her Majesty's judges are called upon to consider these matters, as they will be, I have no doubt that they will say, in tones of bewilderment and anger, "How on earth did Parliament come to pass legislation of this sort?" The only answer that we shall be able to give is that a rapacious Government, anxious to snatch votes at all possible cost, used their temporary and fleeting majority to bully the Bill through the House of


Commons irrespective of the consideration that could be given to it. That will be the answer.

Mr. Graham Page: The majority at the moment appears to be one Law Officer, one Whip and an opposer of the Bill.

Mr. Brittan: That is about the size of it, and that is the answer.
I say to the Committee—I direct my remarks especially to the Lord Advocate —that it will be a matter of shame for us as a legislature that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Government brought about a situation that will mean that this legislation, when it comes before the courts, will be ill-considered and ill-digested, and, therefore, difficult of interpretation.
The schedule deals with the situation that will arise when a challenge is made to a Scottish Assembly Act, or a purported exercise of power by a Scottish Secretary, on the ground that the Assembly, or the Secretary of State, has exceeded its or his powers and done something that the enacting constitutional document, the Scotland Act, does not permit.
The Opposition think that it is absolutely right that it should be possible to argue in the courts, in proceedings, that an Act of the Scottish Assembly or an Act of the Executive is ultra vires and beyond the powers of the Assembly or the Executive after its passage through the Assembly or its decision by the Executive, even if the matter has not been referred to the Judicial Committee in advance of the enactment of the Assembly Act. The Committee will recall that there is a procedure thereby, if it is thought that a matter that the Assembly is thinking of doing will be ultra vires, it can be referred to the Judicial Committee in advance, which can pronounce on that point.
We think that it was quite wrong of the Government to resist all attempts to enable people other than the Secretary of State to refer matters at that stage to the Judicial Committee. We think it quite wrong that the Government should have reserved to themselves power to bring before the courts, before enactment, an Assembly Bill to see whether it is or is not within the powers of the Assembly. However, we welcome the

fact that, that initial mistake having been made, it is still possible for a citizen to raise in the courts the vires of an Act of the Scottish Assembly or an Act or proposed Act of the Scottish Executive.
We also think it right—it is relevant to say this—that a challenge to the vires of a Scottish Assembly Act or of an Act of the Scottish Executive should be possible even if the matter has come before the Judicial Committee and has been held to be intra vires by the Committee. As we understand the legislation before us, even without any amendment, it is open to the courts, if the vires of an Act of the Assembly or an Act of the Executive is raised, to decide that it is ultra vires even if the Judicial Committee has previously allowed the Bill to go through and to become an Act.
Apart from anything else, I should like from the Lord Advocate confirmation that that position, as I understand it, is the one that he intends the Bill to convey, because it is a matter of some importance.
It might be thought at first blush that it is a curious procedure that the Judicial Committee can say that a Bill is all right but that later, when it comes before the courts as an Act, it should be possible to argue that it is not all right and that it is beyond the powers of the Scottish Assembly. I think, however, that that is a correct procedure.
Those of us who have looked into the history of the United State's handling of these matters will know that there is a wide feeling in the United States that the constitutionality or otherwise of legislation is something that really ought to be determined not as a theoretical question but when a case or controversy is raised in real proceedings between litigants, whether or not one of them is the State. That is because it is only when one sees how and where the shoe pinches, and what the actual effect on individual litigants is. that it is possible really to determine the scope of legislation and see whether  goes beyond the powers of the somewhat general words used in the actual legislation that confers the power.
All that is to the good, subject to the clarification that I hope the Lord Advocate will be able to give about my assumption on these matters. But—and this is the reason for the amendment—problems will still arise, and the principal problem


that we have to consider in the amendment is the whole question of retrospectivity. What happens if, when it comes before a court, that court, whichever one it be, decides that a particular Act of the Scottish Assembly is null and void because it was beyond the powers of the Assembly to pass it?
10.0 p.m.
The problem may be said to arise to a lesser extent in the case of byelaws or subordinate legislation which can be struck down by the courts under our present law, without the Scottish Assembly. But the position is much more serious, because such byelaws and subordinate legislation are all made under an Act of Parliament, and Parliament can intervene to put right the ill that the courts have found to exist. It can amend the legislation under which the subordinate legislation was passed so that comparable legislation subsequently becomes possible.
But in the case of the Scottish Assembly and the Acts of the Scottish Executive, the position is very different, because what has been determined has been determined not by a body within the hierarchy of Parliament, the Minister and the local authority but by a body which in fact, if not in form, is a separate body with a life of its own—the Scottish Assembly. If a Scottish Assembly Act is held to be outside the powers conferred by the Bill, it will be by no means so easy to return to Parliament to put that right.
What will be the consequences if a Scottish Assembly Act is held to be void and therefore void ab initio, never to have had any force? That may happen years after it was passed simply because it never comes to the courts until then. What will be the position on vested rights that may have accrued as a result of people behaving as if the law were valid, when it is proved to be null and void? Are those rights to be set at naught or to be regarded as matters to which force must be given? What happens if someone has acted in a way that was legal under the legislation but, if the legislation is void and of no effect, has later proved to be illegal?
These are real problems, and the Government have not provided even the semblance of a solution. The right course

may be that the principles applied by the courts to previous subordinate legislation such as I have described, in relation to a decision of the courts, should be applied here. If so, the Government should say so in the Bill and not leave it for the courts to reach decisions on that point with no guidance from Parliament. It is right not only for the courts to be given guidance but for the individuals who may be affected to know the consequences on their property rights and their position under the criminal law if something that they thought to be legal under this measure proves to be illegal.
This is yet another illustration of the uncertainty that will be caused by the passage of legislation which is so half-baked and the consequences of which are so ill thought out.
I do not pretend that the amendment deals with those problems. It cannot possibly do that, because to deal with them effectively would require at the very least a whole schedule setting out the principles to be applied by the courts when legislation is struck down as being ultra vires.

Mr. Percy Grieve: Surely the best way of avoiding that appalling insecurity would be not to have the Bill at all.

Mr. Brittan: That is the position that we have adopted consistently, and this whole area of problems is merely another vivid illustration of how much wiser that course would have been in the first place.
But, if we are to go along this road, the least that this Committee can ask for and the least that the people of Scotland and of the United Kingdom as a whole can ask for is that the Government have the intellectual integrity, the courage and the assiduity to work through and put on the statute book the consequences of their ill-conceived notions and thereby give the courts the guidance which is so singularly lacking about how to deal with problems that will arise whenever a Bill passed by the Scottish Assembly is held by the Judicial Committee to be void and of no effect.
Our amendment does not solve the problems, it only raises them. But, by raising them, it illustrates their magnitude and the total paucity of any solution provided by the Government.

Mr. Dalyell: I am not a lawyer. Nevertheless it is perfectly legitimate for a Member of Parliament to ask those who might be thought to have first-hand knowledge on such an issue. Therefore, I have to report to the Committee that I talked to the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Mr. MacKay, and later to Mr. Cameron, who is specialising on this Bill on behalf of the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh. I am authorised to say that they are very concerned about the vagueness of the schedules, which they say will create difficulties in the courts.
It is not up to me at this time of night to go into the details of the long document which was given us in February 1977. But they say that in fact, although the Government have met some of the minor points, it is their opinion that the major points put forward by the Faculty of Advocates have not been met.
They say, for example that the difficulty will occur in cases where there are provisions dealing with the same subject matter both in an Assembly Act and in an Act of Parliament. They also say that it is by no means easy to see precisely where the dividing line between devolved and non-devolved matters will ultimately rest. It appears, however, to be so drawn as to create obscurity and anomaly in at least the following respects —and they go on to refer to consumer protection. They are worried about the term "juristic persons". They concern themselves with a number of other matters, including the protection of depositors.
I go on to the next related matter. The same complaints come from Mr. Pritchard, who is secretary of the Law Society in Scotland. He says that the document which was issued by order of the Council of the Law Society, Ian A. Macmillan, president, in fact in most respects still stands.
On previous occasions, I have quoted at some length from this document. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, but I think that there is a serious case, at any rate before Lords Amendments, that Ministers have to get together with the most prestigious legal bodies in Scotland to work out matters which cannot be worked out in a short time and

still less by me as a non-lawyer in this Committee. Therefore, I put the formal request to my right hon. and learned Friend and say that, speaking for myself —and I cannot speak for anyone else—I shall not be satisfied until I hear from the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates that they are satisfied.
Finally, earlier today and on a previous occasion, on 29th November, I raised the issue which concerned many of us about what will happen if decisions are to be made by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I am afraid that I am not persuaded by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. It seems to us that, whatever the legal position on this matter may be, Scottish National Party Members here and many Members of the Assembly will never be satisfied if they are told that in the ultimate, final analysis it is not their oil, for example, because the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has decided the issue.
Tonight I say in all humility that I took it upon myself to send copies of Hansard with a covering letter to seven possible members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—Lords Diplock, Denning, Dilhorne, Edmund Davies, Simon, Wilberforce and Gardiner. They did me the courtesy of replying. It is not up to me to tell the House what they said or to pretend that they were on my side of the argument. I am saying that it is legitimate for a Member of this Committee to say that he hopes profoundly that the legal authorities with whom this buck will rest at the end of the day if this Bill becomes an Act should stir themselves—to use the word politely —and reflect on what they are being asked to do. The situation is different from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council deciding on some difficulties in Canada or Australia. It is being drawn into the mire of what is, by definition, the most acute problem of current political controversy.
We should not be here if it were not for oil. The situation would have been totally different. The SNP campaign involves posters which state that it is his, her or their oil. To be told at the end of the day by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that it is not his, her or


their oil may be legally correct but it is not politically possible that it will be accepted easily. The Committee might be quite right but those who have campaigned will not bow to the superior wisdom of Lords Diplock and Dilhorne.
What is the position in relation to the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates? What are the political realities which we are likely to face when we draw the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council into a political situation, besides which Sir John Donaldson would have been a model of political objectivity?

Mr. David Steel: We have been a little discourteous about the substantial redrafting of the Bill. The difference between the formula of the Scotland and Wales Bill and the proposals in the present Bill are substantial. I say to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that it would have been far more vexatious and difficult to progress on the basis of what we had in the last session when there were a series of ministerial overrides where power was devolved in one clause and taken back in another. That was a recipe for continual political conflict in a way that this schedule is not.
One of the criticisms which I and my colleagues made of the original Bill was that we should move towards the type of constitutional review with which other parts of the Commonwealth are familiar. The hon. Member for West Lothian says that it is all very well for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to issue judgments on matters in Canada and Australia but that it is too difficult to do that in these Islands. I do not accept that view.
My purpose has always been to see that we bring the devolved powers as close as possible, in the light of geography and population, to a clearer concept. We have suggested that the real solution is to have a special constitutional court. The compromise of the Government is that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should do the two jobs of pre-assent and post-assent review. Not to give some acknowledgment to the Government for this substantial change and, I believe, improvement

in the arrangements is, to say the least, niggardly.

Mr. Grieve: The quarrel which we on these Benches have is not with the judicial review by the Privy Council, which we would all agree is an improvement, and one that we strongly urged in the last Bill. In the amendment we are seeking to meet the insecurity which will result in the period pending such review.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Steel: The hon. and learned Member is rushing ahead of me in my speech. I was just beginning to say that this is a substantial improvement in the legislation. We are therefore faced with a completely new concept which is that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will intervene in an area which was previously open to straightforward political conflict. I do not think—and this is probably where I part company with the hon. Member for West Lothian in this argument—that the elected Members of the Scottish Assembly, or the citizens of Scotland after the Assembly is set up, whatever its political complexion, will be looking for points of litigation and points of conflict with Westminster. That appears to be the assumption. Much will depend on what is climate after the Assembly is set up, but I guess that those who are elected to it will, whatever their politics, want to make it a success. I do not believe that everyone will start off on the assumption that they are out to make as big a mess of it as they can.

Mr. Dalyell: I did not say that they wanted to make a mess of it, but the truth is that they will not have the cash to carry out half the promises that they have made. There is the problem of finding the cash and where, apart from the oil revenues, will they get it?

Mr. Steel: I will deal with that point but not on this amendment.
I thought that the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) put forward a cogent case in support of his amendment, and the Lord Advocate should deal with the questions about what the position in law will be if a law passed by the Scottish Assembly is subsequently judged to be ultra vires. I do not think necessarily that the wording of the amendment is perfect, and in fairness I should point out that the hon. Member


did not claim that. But the Lord Advocate will have to answer that point because basically I, who was one of the supporters of this fundamental change, am also sympathetic to the point made by the Opposition, and I think that that point has to be answered.

Mr. Grieve: As I said when I intervened briefly in the speech of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), I do not think there is anyone on the Conservative Benches who would not contend that this is a great improvement over the original Bill in that it provides for a review by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. My right hon. and hon. Friends advanced that view strongly over many long nights on the previous Bill.
The amendment is designed to effect some improvement in the rights of the ordinary citizen. It is impossible to travel about the country today without sensing the appalling feeling of insecurity among people in managing and arranging their affairs, in dealing with their wills and in making their financial and family arrangements through the plethora, the spate and the weight of ill-digested, ill-considered and, all too frequently, guillotined legislation. We face that situation not only on this Bill but on Bill after Bill. Legislation pours from this Parliament but it is ill-considered because there is no time in the House to consider it. It is considered in another place, but when it is returned here, their proposals are frequently rejected.
This, I have frequently urged upon the Committee and upon the House of Commons, is one of the reasons why we are facing a demand for devolution at all, to the extent that such a demand exists. It is a sickness felt by the citizen with over-Government. People resent government. They resent having their powers changed from day to day, from year to year, and from Government to Government by legislation. They condemn London. They condemn Whitehall. They say "Let us have some more government nearer to where we are", little realising that they are simply creating another tier of bureaucracy.
The result of this legislation would be that people would go to their lawyers and make arrangements and try to order their affairs in Scotland in accordance

with what they consider are the terms of the Bill when it has gone through Parliament, if it does—God forbid. They will then be faced, perhaps a long period afterwards, with a matter taken to the Privy Council that will alter the whole complexion of the law, alter the interpretation of the Bill and leave them in a position in which it may well be that arrangements which they have entered into in all good faith appear no longer to be right. They may find themselves in extreme legal difficulties.
That is the vice at which the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) is aimed. That is the vice which the amendment is designed to conquer and to meet. For that reason I, for one, give it my unflinching support. I hope that it will meet with support from both the Government and Opposition. It certainly met with support from the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). No one has been more assiduous than he in the consideration of the Bill in its progress, if progress it can be called, through the House of Commons.
For those reasons I commend the amendment to the Committee. I commend it to my hon. Friends. I do not know whether it is necessary to commend it to Labour Members because, as has been observed, there are only three Members present on the Government side—the hon. Member for West Lothian, who is bitterly opposed to the Bill, the Lord Advocate, who is making the best of a bad job and a poor, poor Whip.

Mr. Gow: It would be churlish not to point out that from the time when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) sat down to the moment when I rose to address the Committee another hon. Gentleman from the Government side had joined the Committee. There are now four hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches. It would be churlish not to welcome to our proceedings the Lord Advocate. I understand that today is the first occasion on which he has assumed ministerial responsibility for an amendment to the Scotland Bill. I express the hope, even before having heard his reply, that he will grace the Committee on future occasions with his presence and, above all, with his speeches. We look forward


with mounting impatience to the maiden speech of the Lord Advocate on this Bill. As you glance to your right, Mr. Murton, you will see in his place the right hon. and learned Gentleman. You have not heard him yet, Mr. Murton, and I hope that you may have the privilege of sitting in that Chair when the Committee resumes on Wednesday of next week, for then, if not tonight, the Lord Advocate will be addressing the Committee.
I wish that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had sought to catch your eye, Mr. Murton, when my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) sat down. There was one way in which the Lord Advocate could have shortened these proceedings and allowed us to debate other matters. That was simply by seeking to catch the eye of the Chair when my hon. Friend had sat down and then to say in one sentence "I congratulate the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby on an excellent amendment and, on behalf of the Government, I accept it". That should have been the Lord Advocate's maiden speech to the Committee.
My hon. Friend put forward a most compelling argument. Indeed, he moved the amendment with that characteristic modesty that we have come to expect from him. Quite unlike the Government Front Bench, my hon. Friend did not say that his amendment was perfect. He did not claim for the Tory Party that this one amendment would make such an improvement to this dreadful Bill that it ought to go down in the annals as a great achievement. Rightly, my hon. Friend said that if the amendment were accepted, it would be an improvement to the Bill.
Why did my hon. Friend say that? For the very reason that you, Mr. Murton, and I came into the House of Commons in the first place—to protect the individual against the arrogance of the State. That is what motivated my hon. Friend, just as it motivated you, Mr. Murton, and other right hon. and hon. Members.
What does the amendment seek to do? It seeks to provide that any person who, subsequent to something which is done or purported to be done by either the Scottish Assembly or a Scottish Minister, in pursuance of the Act which the Bill

will then have become, acts ultra vires through no fault of his own, shall not be subject to penalty. That is the effect of the amendment. A person who has acted bona fide in trying to interpret the mysteries of what will become, if the Government have their way, an Act of Parliament, shall not be adversely affected or prejudiced.
How can the Government sustain the proposition that the amendment is unacceptable? It is a modest, fair amendment. It seeks to absolve from blame, culpability or penalty any person who acts in accordance with a determination made by the Assembly or by a Scottish Secretary. Why should a citizen of Scotland or, indeed, any other part of the kingdom, be held accountable for the misdeeds of the Government? The misunderstandings, difficulties of interpretation and the whole question of vires will—not may—arise.
My hon. Friend and the Lord Advocate are members of the senior branch of the legal profession. I am only a solicitor. I say this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that a very great deal of legal business will result if this Bill should ever become an Act. The question of vires, the question of the competence of the Assembly, of a Scottish Secretary, will be continually and continuously in dispute.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Sproat: A legal bonanza.

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) talks of a legal bonanza. There are many right hon. and hon. learned Members on the Labour Benches who are opposed to a legal bonanza. I speak against my profession when I say that they are right. I hope that the Lord Advocate, when he makes his maiden speech, will graciously say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby "I thank the hon. Member for introducing this amendment. I recognise that it is an improvement to the Bill." I hope that he will accept the speeches of my right hon and hon. Friends in that spirit.

Mr. Graham Page: The whole of Schedule 12, which this amendment seeks to alter, is contrary to natural justice. If it is pursued the Government may well find themselves brought before the Court of


Human Rights. It deals with what is called a "devolution issue," which is duly defined in paragraph 1 of the Schedule as follows:
In this Schedule "devolution issue" means a question—
(a) whether a Scottish Assembly Act or any provision of a Scottish Assembly Act is within the legislative competence of the Assembly; or
(b) whether a matter with respect to which a Scottish Secretary has purported to exercise or proposes to exercise a power is a devolved matter."
This issue will not arise by reason of the Lord Advocate thinking that some power has been exceeded. It will not arise by reason of the Scottish Secretary admitting that he has exceeded his powers. It will arise because some individual citizen feels aggrieved, because he feels that he has been injured by what he thinks is a wrong exercise of power, or even as a result of a dispute between two individuals.
What are those individuals to do? This devolution issue is to be fought out between two Government officers. The aggrieved individual is to be forbidden to take part. The Lord Advocate shakes his head. I hope that he can put me right. As I read Schedule 12, there is nothing in it which accommodates the aggrieved in it which accommodates the say that he can take part in this issue, or have anything to say. After all, he is the person most concerned.
When the issue has been decided—perhaps it is an issue between two individuals—one of them may well find that it has been declared that he has been acting illegally. One individual may feel that he has won the argument while the other may find that he has been acting illegally. It is that which the amendment attempts to ameliorate and to say that if some poor individual, who has not had a chance to put his own case, is found to have acted illegally, at least he shall have the indemnity offered by the amendment.
I would have thought that this amendment—even if the Lord Advocate cannot accept it as it is phrased—is something which in principle ought to be included in Schedule 12. It would, at least, save the Lord Advocate from being brought before the Court of Human Rights and being told that the whole of Schedule 12 is against natural justice.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I was invited to thank the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) for introducing this amendment and I gladly do so. We have had a useful debate on it. But I cannot go further. The hon. Member frankly said that he did not maintain that the amendment was perfect. He urged, rather, the principle of the amendment upon the Committee. I would like to reply in that spirit.
First I confirm that it is my view that if the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, on a pre-Assent reference, passed a Bill as intra vires—although it might not arise in a decision in exactly that form, the effect would be to endorse it as intra vires—that would not bar later court action to gain the benefit of a court decision to the effect that part of the Act or the whole of the Act was ultra vires. I agree that that is the reasoning by which the hon. Gentleman supported the desirability of that conclusion.
It is desirable that decisions involving justice and injustice to citizens should be real decision taken in a real context. Indeed, that was argued strongly by the Government on the Scotland and Wales Bill last Session. I welcome the view of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) in so far as he dealt with this matter and gave some credit to the Government for responding to criticisms made on those lines.
The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby suggested that one of the differences between ordinary subordinate legislation and Assembly legislation—which, after all, from the point of view of this Parliament, is subordinate legislation—

Mr. Brittan: In theory.

The Lord Advocate: I accept that. At any rate, it is not of the status of the legislation of this sovereign Parliament. One must remember that the reality is that, if the subordinate legislature, however important its primary legislation may be, oversteps its proper limits, this sovereign Parliament must have an inherent power to rectify that situation. That is a matter that I think the hon. Gentleman overlooked.
On one of the things he said about the amendment the hon. Gentleman was perhaps guilty of a certain exaggeration. If


there are merits in the amendment, one of the criticisms that can be made of the Government's position on the basis of the amendment is not justified. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the position he sought to improve, or the defect he sought to remedy by means of the amendment, is something which logically requires the Government to spell out a whole series of remedies for possible situations.
Surely that kind of approach is dead against the genius of our law, both the common law south of the border and Scots law north of the border. The genius of our law is rather to proceed in an empirical way. Indeed, I would adopt an argument he used earlier in his speech, that the benefit of having post-judicial decisions in real litigation in the courts is that one gets decisions on real problems.
Surely it is wrong in principle and contrary to the traditional legislation of the House of Commons to seek to spell out every possible inequity and all possible remedies to every possible inequity. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman thinks about that, he will see that such is the logic of the argument he presented.
I come now to the mainstream of the argument. The hon. Gentleman indicated that the amendment was proposing a provision to achieve the effect that a judicial determination than an Assembly Act or provision was ultra vires would not prejudice or adversely affect any person who relied upon its being lawful prior to that determination.
This, on the face of it, is a well-intentioned amendment with what appears to be a reasonable objective. But, apart from the defects that the hon. Gentleman recognised might lie in it, closer examination reveals this type of remedy to be a radical departure from existing legal canons, the implications of which would be far reaching and, indeed, unforeseeable. I press that as an important point. The implications of such an amendment would be quite unforeseeable and would almost certainly generate greater inequities than hose it sought to solve.
This case can be put by pointing out that the amendment seeks to change, in this quite restricted field—vires in regard to Assembly legislation and Executive acts—the normal rules about

the effect of court decisions on pre-existing law and the pre-existing legal relations which rested upon that law.
Normally the prudent man must act upon the best advice that he can get as to the law as it is believed to be. If it turns out to be wrong, the consequences lie where they fall. But the issues which give rise to a successful challenge of vires will in general be no different in character from those which arise in the course of litigation about statute law or subordinate legislation at present. Indeed, they will arise in the course of an ordinary action seeking from the courts some remedy which the court is able to give to that litigant.
Although the Assembly in its legislation will clearly be enacting legislation more far-reaching and of a higher status than subordinate legislation of this House, in principle the latter—the subordinate legislation and statutory instruments of this House—gives rise to the same problem to which the same solution might be proferred.
The hon. Gentleman recognised that in presenting his argument. I suggest that we should pause to consider that matter carefully before adopting a solution which is an extremely radical departure from normal practice and which has not been thought to be necessary or equitable in regard to existing problems of vires.
I cannot resist the aside that there is a certain paradox here because the official Opposition in earlier debates on the Scotland and Wales Bill laid more stress on the merits of judicial review being available through the ordinary courts in the land. That was a view I agreed with. It is surprising that those who took that view should now be tabling this amendment, the effect of which is to reverse that position to some extent. To put the matter another way, if Assembly Acts like Acts of Parliament cannot be challenged as to vires this problem would not arise at all. Logically this is an amendment which points in the direction of not having judicial review at all. I put that as an aside. But the real and substantial difficulty is that the consequences of an amendment of this type are far-reaching and unforeseeable.
At this point I would make another aside. Some hon. Members who have


spoken have perhaps failed to appreciate that in the original Scotland and Wales Bill, had nothing whatever been said about legislation of the Assembly being challenged, there is no doubt in law that the courts would have had the normal power of judicial review. Accordingly, if nothing is said, judicial review exists.
What we are doing in Schedule 12 is not to spell out all the implications of judicial review. What we are seeking to do is to provide the essential machinery to enable effective steps to be taken—in other words, to give a degree of certainty and provide the machinery for the carrying out of judicial review. It is not meant to go beyond that.
Looked at in that light, some of the criticisms levelled against the Government are not justified. The implication of seeking to correct a possible inequity in a comparatively narrow range of cases which are very difficult to envisage is that it would have far-reaching effects which might create all sorts of different inequities which go far beyond the rights, duties and legal obligations of litigants and involve all sorts of people who are not party to litigation and who have not had a choice about it.
If we were to agree to this sort of amendment it might have that sort of effect. A strong and cogent case would have to be made to prefer that to the normal rule with regard to a judicial decision, which is to the effect that the consequences in a judicial decision have to lie where they fall.
10.45 p.m.
There may be other remedies, such as legislation in Parliament. Sometimes ex gratia payments can be made in appropriate cases and pardons granted in criminal cases. These are remedies that are essentially outside the normal course of litigation which seem appropriate in the present state of the United Kingdom before devolution. These are the lines upon which we should concentrate.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Lord Advocate saying that the only difference between the judicial review of Acts of the Scottish Assembly and the normal course of the judicial review of subordinate legislation of this House is that there is a third option opened up? Either the court effectively establishes the law of the land and

everyone abides by it or Parliament decides to change the law in line with the decision. Now there is a third option in which the Scottish Assembly adjusts the Act, and this is the only difference.

The Lord Advocate: I am grateful to the right hon. Member. I accept that there is a third option open.

Mr. Brittan: But this is not an option opened to deal with this problem. The Scottish Assembly may be able to achieve legislation of a broadly comparable kind, minus the defect that led to the previous legislation being held to be ultra vires. But it will not be able to affect or rectify the position as far as it concerns people who have acted in the past on the basis of the previous legislation being valid. Surely the whole basis of the point that the Lord Advocate is making is that these are within the same structure. It is all very well to talk about ex gratia payments and pardons as ways of dealing with striking down a piece of subordinate legislation within the United Kingdom system, but when there are two Governments and two legislatures, that cannot be done in the same way. We cannot have a United Kingdom legislature and a United Kingdom Government intervening to rectify the effects of subordinate legislation of the Scottish Assembly that has been proved invalid in the same way as United Kingdom subordinate legislation. If we did that, there would be considerable political problems. We cannot leave the law silent because there are important political differences between straightforward legislation and Scottish Assembly legislation.

The Lord Advocate: I accept the way in which the hon. Gentleman has put it. The Scottish Assembly will not necessarily be able to rectify it. When I mentioned ex gratia payments I meant that the Scottish Assembly and its Executive could take steps to rectify the situation in this way.
I come back to the main stream of the argument and point out that there is other machinery to ensure that this kind of inequity would be very rare. I am thinking particularly of arrangements for pre-enactment scrutiny, which are crucial. These include arrangements for pre-enactment references to the judicial committee. Nothing of the kind exists for subordinate legislation of this House. Pre-enactment


scrutiny should be a considerable protection against the existence of the kind of evil that this amendment intends to meet.
Let me deal, somewhat out of order, with the interesting point mentioned by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). I must refute his argument. I think that he possibly has in mind an argument which might have been advanced on other amendments, if reached, but which will not, I am sure, be reached tonight. I think that it is appropriate for me to point out the reason why in this part of the schedule there is specific reference to the Lord Advocate and the Attorney-General as people who have title to raise the issue of vires in appropriate litigation, because if they were not mentioned there might be doubt whether they had title to sue. For that reason they have been expressly mentioned in the schedule. But by the same token an ordinary litigant who has an interest in the matter and who has title to sue would be able to raise that issue in an action competent before an ordinary court of law. There is no doubt about that. Accordingly, the hypothesis he put to me is without foundation and the right hon. Gentleman's worry is unjustified.

Mr. Graham Page: Does that not mean that two actions may take place at the same time and that the devolved issue may arise in court in an action between two individuals? If it rests with the Lord Advocate and the Attorney-General to fight it out between them, surely the litigants in the case in which the matter has arisen should be allowed to take part in that action between the Lord Advocate and the Attorney-General.

The Lord Advocate: If the right hon. Gentleman re-examines the schedule, he will find that we have anticipated that possibility.
I return to the main stream of the argument. It seems to me that the more one examines the amendment the more one sees that any attempt to unravel a transaction entered into and acquiesced in many years previously in the way required would be a desperately difficult task. The remedy is not as easy as it looks. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby said that problems might arise because something that appeared as settled law might be affected, but the remedy pre-

scribed might be at least as difficult and complex as the situation it seeks to put right.
I think that the amendment adopts a difficult approach in a narrow area which cannot be separated in content from what occurs in an ordinary action. It seeks to produce new and separate rules affecting established principles—for instance, the principle that money paid under an error in law cannot be recovered, and the principle of res judicata, which prevents the parties to a legal action which has been concluded from reopening it on the ground that a later decision has changed the law on which it was decided. All these matters would have to be reconsidered and the far-reaching effects of the amendment cannot be exaggerated.
The amendment would also create insoluble problems in relation to its effects upon successive decisions of different courts which came to different conclusions on the same vires question. Persons could be left in complete uncertainty about the security of their rights under past transactions and relationships.
One might have a decision of a relatively subordinate court which, for good reason, nobody wanted to refer to the Judicial Committee or to appeal. It might be that for good reasons the litigants would think the case settled and finished. However, there might have been a different result if the case had been appealed and years later there might be a conflict. The difficulties of the amendment make the mind boggle.
I think my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was guilty of a certain amount of exaggeration in his remarks this evening. I know that it would be difficult, and perhaps impossible, to satisfy all lawyers on any proposed reform or constitutional change, but the Faculty of Advocates to my knowledge went on record strongly in support of a judicial review. That is what the Government are introducing and that is what this issue is concerned with. I know that we have not satisfied the Faculty in every single respect, but I am not aware of any serious doubt about Schedule 12. I understand that the Law Society of Scotland is entirely opposed to judicial review and it would be impossible to satisfy the Society in this debate. I shall not direct myself to a task which is, by definition, impossible.

Mr. Dalyell: On this narrow point, I am willing to be satisfied. On the broader point raised by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), if the Faculty and the Law Society tell me that they are satisfied, I shall automatically be satisfied.

The Lord Advocate: I think that my hon. Friend is baying for the moon. We shall never get all legal bodies satisfied about anything.
The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby conceded that the amendment was not perfect. It has drafting defects. For example, a proper construction of the amendment would exclude the very remedy it seeks to bring about because the loser in litigation is bound to be adversely affected and he may not be able to get a remedy under the amendment.
For all the reasons that I have mentioned, I advise the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. Brittan: The Lord Advocate has applied an exclusively legal approach to this problem. Of course it is a legal problem, but one cannot ignore the political dimension. Looked at solely on the basis of a legal construction, it is tenable to say that Scottish legislation is just like an Order in Council or a Statutory Instrument introduced by the Minister of Agriculture. But that is wholly unreal, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognises the unreality and does not apply that principle in the Bill.
If we could rely on the well-applied and accepted principles for the determination of issues as to the vires of Statutory Instruments, there would be no need for Schedule 12 and the special machinery. We could allow the issues to be raised in the same way as are the vires of bye-laws or Statutory Instruments.
The fact that the Government have introduced special machinery shows that when they are wearing their political hat they are wise enough to realise that the principles to be applied in considering what happens when a Scottish Assembly Act is declared ultra vires cannot be the same as those applied when considering whether a Statutory Instrument is valid.
The Lord Advocate cannot just sweep the problem aside and say that these

matters can be dealt with in the same way. At least some of the ways by which they might be dealt in the case of subordinate legislation are not open to use in circumstances where there are two politically different bodies which may not concur about how the problem should be dealt with.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Assembly might grant ex gratia payments or pardons, but suppose it were deeply resentful of the fact that its Act had been declared ultra vires.

Mr. Dalyell: And it would be resentful if that happened.

Mr. Brittan: Indeed it would. Is the Lord Advocate suggesting that the Assembly would tamely say that the Judicial Committee had broken down the Assembly Act and that its members would have to bear the consequences, including the possibility of making substantial ex gratia payments to citizens who had been aggrieved by the illegality? That is politically unreal. The problem remains.
If the Lord Advocate thinks that the principles that need to be applied in determining what happens in those circumstances are exactly the same as those applied in the case of Statutory Instruments, let him write into the Bill a simple provision saying just that. Let him provide that the principles to be applied in dealing with the situation arising after a Scottish Assembly Act has been declared ultra vires shall be the same as those applied in the case of Statutory Instruments. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman regards that as a constructive suggestion and that he will give it serious consideration so that this canon of interpretations is inserted on Report or later.

Mr. Dalyell: Undoubtedly my right hon. and learned Friend—

It being Eleven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution [22nd November], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the


disposal of the Business to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.

Schedule 12 agreed to.

Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again pursuant to Order [16th November].

Committee report Progress: to sit again tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (JURISDICTION AND JUDGEMENTS) CONVENTION

11.1 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of Commission documents Nos. R/2962/76 and R/2963/76 on Jurisdiction and Judgement Conventions.
I was expecting my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to introduce the debate. Perhaps I can assist—[Interruption.] We shall probably get on more quickly if my right hon. Friend the Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household leaves me to do so as briefly as possible. I am glad to see that my right hon. and learned Friend has now returned to the Chamber.

11.2 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I apologise to the House. There was a little disorganisation.
I beg to move,
That this House takes note of Council Documents Nos. R/2962/76 and R/2963/76 on Jurisdiction and Judgements Convention.
The second of these documents is the English text of the Convention of 27th September 1968 on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, and the Protocol of 3rd June 1971 on its interpretation by the Court of Justice. The first document is the preliminary draft convention on the accession of the new Member States to the 1968 Convention and to the 1971 Protocol. I will call this the "draft Accession Convention".
The instruments of which the House is invited to take note are not, as is usually the case in these debates, draft regulations or directives which are awaiting the approval of the Council; they are treaty instruments to which the member States are to become parties. Eventually it will require the approval not of the Council but of the member States to bring the Accession Convention into effect. The House will therefore have further sight of the final text before it is adopted and the treaty is ratified. The draft is not yet in its final form.
The origins of these instruments are to be found in Article 220 of the EEC Treaty, which provides that the member States shall enter into negotiations to


secure for their nationals the simplification of formalities governing the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments. That provision was given effect by the 1968 Convention. It was, of course, negotiated only by the six original member States, and so it took no account of the particular problems of the United Kingdom. By the time we joined the European Communities, the 1968 Convention had been ratified by the Six—in some ways that was unfortunate—and it entered into force between them on 1st February 1973. The Protocol on its interpretation by the Court of Justice was concluded, again by the six original member States, in 1971, and it entered into force between them in 1975.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: It may be for the convenience of the House if my right hon. and learned Friend could give us his opinion on this matter. He has just said something that is to our surprise: that is, that this is not in the final form—though that should not be surprising. But he said something about it coming back to the House again. He used the phrase a "sight of it". Can he assure us that it will be moved and debated on a Question and motion on the Floor of the House, or will it, perhaps, be going to the Scrutiny Committee and not of necessity coming to the Floor of the House? This is a matter of some procedural importance and interest to some of my hon. Friends who are present tonight.

The Lord Advocate: My hon. Friend is very beguiling, as ever, but I must not yield to temptation. I can go no further than what I have said. My hon. Friend knows very well that it is not a matter for me to dispose of the time of the House and say how it should be arranged. It is right, however, that I should reiterate that, as this is a treaty, it requires to be ratified. The fact that I have already stated that this is something that the House will have a sight of at least means that the House will have an opportunity to make the necessary arrangements, if so advised, so that there could be a full debate if that were required and desired. That opportunity would be there, and beyond that I clearly cannot go.

Mr. Graham Page: This will come before the House on the treaty being

designated a treaty which we have to bring into the law here. It will then come before the House again when we have to change the law here to bring it in line with the treaty.

Mr. Ian Percival: The answer is "Yes".

The Lord Advocate: In so far as the right hon. Gentleman is saying that this House will have to legislate in order to give effect to the treaty, that is undoubtedly right. Appropriate legislative machinery will have to be enacted. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham. South (Mr. Spearing) is asking me to say that I undertake that there will be a debate of a certain kind in a certain form. I cannot do that. But that legislation of this House is necessary is, it seems to me, a sufficient guarantee that opportunities will exist for hon. Members to press for the kind of debate that they wish.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the right hon and learned Gentleman clear up once for all the question whether it will be necessary for this Convention to be recognised as a treaty under, I think, Section 14 of the European Communities Act, or else is it the proposition that, since this Convention is implicit in the Treaty of Accession, it does not need to be added by the procedure of Section 1 of the 1972 Act, in which case no debate would necessarily arise upon the decision itself, though, of course, there would be debate upon the domestic legislation necessary to implement it?

The Lord Advocate: That is very much the kind of matter that I had in mind. The right hon. Gentleman has focused exactly the kind of doubt that can exist in this area. Without notice, however, I am not prepared to go beyond what I have already said.
Article 63 of the 1968 Convention foresaw the possible enlargement of the EEC and required any new member States to accept the Convention as a basis for negotiation. This obligation was embodied in Article 3(2) of the Act governing the conditions of our accession, which required the United Kingdom and the other new member States to enter into negotiations with the original Six on the adjustments necessary to enable the new member States to accede to the 1968 Convention.
The negotiations began in November 1972 with the setting up of a Council working party, and this working party negotiated the necessary adjustments and reported in December 1976. The draft Accession Convention prepared by the working party was submitted to the Governments of member States in the spring of 1977, and they were invited to submit their comments to the Council of the EEC by September of that year. Before I come to the comments that Her Majesty's Government have made, I would like to say a few words about the 1968 Convention and the amendments of it proposed in the draft Accession Convention.
Although Article 220 of the EEC Treaty speaks only of recognition and enforcement of judgments, the 1968 Convention is not so confined; it also regulates the circumstances in which the courts of member States may assume jurisdiction over matters which have an international element, and it is this part of the Convention which will make the most significant impact on our law.
In March 1972, the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Scotland set up a committee under the chairmanship of Lord Kilbrandon to advise on the adjustments which should be sought before the United Kingdom could accede to the 1968 Convention. This committee reported in October 1973, and the conclusions of its report have largely determined the stance of the United Kingdom negotiating team in Brussels. For this reason, the report has not been published. Since 1973, the United Kingdom delegation has been advised by a working party under the chairmanship of a High Court judge.
In the light of our Treaty commitment to accede to the 1968 Convention and its Protocol after making necessary adjustments, the scope for making changes in the Convention is restricted, and Her Majesty's Government believe that in general its provisions can be accepted and will work satisfactorily. Most of the adjustments which we considered essential for the operation of the courts in the different parts of the United Kingdom will be made if the draft Accession Convention is adopted.
Of the principal adjustments which would result from the draft Convention, three provide additional grounds of juris-

diction of peculiar importance to our legal systems. They deal with maintenance, Admiralty proceedings and trusts, and a word about each of these may be appropriate.
First, as regards maintenance, the 1968 Convention allows proceedings for maintenance to be brought only in the courts of the country where either the claimant or the respondent habitually resides. In this country maintenance awards are most commonly made in consequence of divorce proceedings, and the divorce proceedings will often have been brought in courts other than those of the habitual residence of one of the parties. As a result, many maintenance awards made by our courts would not have been enforceable in the other countries of the Common Market. An appropriate amendment, to be found in Article 5(3) of the draft Accession Convention, will overcome this anomaly.
Next, I come to Admiralty proceedings. The jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court over maritime disputes is in the majority of cases based on the presence of ships or cargo in the United Kingdom. It is an arrest jurisdiction. But the 1968 Convention does not provide for such a jurisdiction, except indirectly in so far as it allows other Conventions to continue to operate. Our Admiralty jurisdiction accords generally with the provisions of the Brussels Convention of 1952 on the Arrest of Seagoing Ships.
The preservation of other relevant Conventions does not, however, provide a complete answer, first because two of the member States, Denmark and Ireland, are not at present parties to the 1952 Convention, and secondly because actions for the limitation of a shipowner's liability are not covered by it. This latter point is met by a specific provision in Article 6 of the draft Accession Convention.
As regards the preservation of existing conventions and the Brussels 1952 Convention in particular, there are a number of important provisions in the draft Accession Convention. Any doubt about the right of member States which are parties to another convention to rely on that convention even as against nationals of another EEC State which is not party to the other convention is resolved by Article 24 of the draft Accession Convention, which article also provides for


recognition and enforcement of any judgments given in reliance on such other conventions, present or future. Moreover, the peculiar needs of Denmark and Ireland are met by a transitional provision in Article 35, which allows them to exercise Admiralty jurisdiction pending their accession to the 1952 Convention.
The third additional jurisdiction concerns trusts. None of the original six member States has a legal concept akin to the common law notion of a trust, and the 1968 Convention accordingly makes no mention of trusts. Amendments proposed in the draft Accession Convention will plug this gap. They will ensure, for instance, that in proceedings concerned with the internal relatonships of an English or Scottish trust the appropriate courts of the United Kingdom will will continue to have jurisdiction.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said a few moments ago that most of the adjustments that the Government considered essential for the working of our own courts were included in the document. But that suggests that some are not. Will he tell us what they are?

The Lord Advocate: I propose to do that. If I omit some that the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks to be important, perhaps he will take them up with my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General when he replies to the debate.
Other major proposed amendments relate to insurance. The 1968 Convention contains special provisions governing jurisdiction in insurance proceedings. Their underlying assumption is that the insured is at such an economic disadvantage as against the insurer that the Convention must help to redress the balance by expanding the number of jurisdictions where the insured can sue, and limiting those where he can be sued. These assumptions do not hold good in many fields of commercial insurance. Having regard to the United Kingdom's major interest in insurance matters as the centre of the world's insurance market, the Kilbrandon Committee thought that the most important point for the United Kingdom in the negotiations was to secure amendment of the relevant articles—namely, Articles 7–12—and, that at the very least, they should not always apply

to marine and aviation insurance. This result should be largely achieved by the amendments in Articles 8 and 9 of the draft Accession Convention.
I said earlier that the draft Accession Convention now before the House was referred by the Council to the Governments of the member States for their comments. The United Kingdom submitted observations, of which copies were placed in the Libraries of both Houses before Christmas. Hon. Members who have studied them will see that, in addition to a number of technical points, there are three points of substance on which we would like to see further amendment. They are concerned with agreements on jurisdiction which, in accordance with Article 17 of the 1968 Convention, are effective to give specified courts jurisdiction only if a number of conditions are satisfied.
The issue to which Her Majesty's Government attach most importance concerns the form of such agreements. The first paragraph of Article 17 provides that a jurisdiction agreement shall be effective only if it is in writing or is confirmed in writing. This provision has been interpreted by the European Court so narrowly that only an express written provision about the court which is to have jurisdiction will do. It concedes a limited exception for agreements made in the course of a continuing trading relationship. But, every day, agreements worth many millions of pounds are made in which the parties intend to cover jurisdiction without expressly mentioning it. The jurisdiction clause is not contained in the agreement in writing but is incorporated by reference to the standard conditions of, for instance, the London commodity markets. It would be most undesirable if such agreements reached between parties of equal strength negotiating at arm's length, were to become ineffective. We have, therefore, proposed that, in commercial as distinct from consumer transactions, the strict requirement of writing should not be retained.
The second point is that jurisdiction agreements are effective only if one or more of the parties is domiciled in a member State. We see no reason why such agreements should not be effective even though none of the parties is a Community domiciliary. There is an international demand for the services of


our courts to which we attach much value. A high proportion of the cases in the Commercial Court are cases in which neither party is British, and in many of these neither party is a Community domiciliary. If the parties wish to see their disputes litigated in London or—indeed, Edinburgh—unless there are overriding considerations to the contrary we see no reason why effect should not be given to their wishes.
The third point is related to the second. If a court assumes jurisdiction in disregard of a choice of court agreement, we propose that this should in itself be a ground for refusing recognition of the resulting judgment.
The draft Accession Convention has been referred back to a Council working party, which will be meeting next week to discuss the observations of the member States. In these discussions, the British delegation will be able to bear in mind the views expressed in the House tonight. Subject to a satisfactory resolution of the points raised in the United Kingdom observations, the Government believe that the draft Accession Convention contains all the adjustments necessary to enable the United Kingdom to accede to the 1968 Convention. In that light, I invite the House to take note of this document.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This is an extraordinary hour and a half that the House is having. In the observations which I want to make I should like to make it clear at the outset that there is implicit no criticism of the Lord Advocate, who, as I well remember, was not one of those who voted that a Lord Advocate should ever find himself in a position of having to make a speech such as he has just made from the Box.
It is really inconceivable that this House should be told that the far-reaching changes in the laws of this country have to be made in pursuance of a convention when—I think that the Lord Advocate admitted this in response to the query of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and myself—we shall not even have the semi-formality of adding that convention to the documents which are treaties for the purpose of the 1972 Act.
When we come to the consequential legislation, we shall be told that this is

not, in the ordinary sense of the word, debatable since it is in pursuance of a convention which we have already entered into and ratified.
I shall give two brief quotations from the Explanatory Memorandum. The first is:
The accession of the United Kingdom…will require…substantial amendment of existing law in relation to the grounds on which the courts of the United Kingdom exercise jurisdiction, as well as significant (although less substantial) changes in the law relating to recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and consequential amendment to procedural rules.
The second quotation, from paragraph 7, is that the Convention
will involve the abandonment of certain long established rules in both England and Scotland".
In the former case, these are matters no doubt requiring intricate and careful legislation which certainly ought not to be made by Parliament under any sort of duress, and they should not come before either House in a form in which the Houses are hound by a pre-existing and ratified convention.
It is intolerable that we should have been warned that we should have "further sight of the final text" of the Convention, after which it would be necessary for the House to legislate to make changes of a substantial character.
Incidentally, although hon. Members have had before them the Explanatory Memorandum, for most of them the secret was revealed only in the course of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech that, consequent to the memorandum of last May, there has been an exchange between this Government and the Community authorities which was deposited in the Library of the House. We tried to pick up as best we could from the Lord Advocate's speech the points in that communication. It is intolerable that it was not brought to the attention of right hon. and hon. Members that a document material to the debate as lying in the Library unbeknown to them and, presumably, to anyone but the Government.
Those of us who are enemies to the cause of such a consequence as this are often accused that in these debates we are unconstructive. That is a contradictory accusation. On the occasion, however, I wish to make a very specific suggestion to the Government with which I


hope both sides of the House will associate themselves. I am not denying that in the position in which we find ourselves we are bound to ratify such a Convention and that we are bound as best we can to implement it. I am not seeking to deny that that is implicit in the present fact of our membership of the EEC. But, at least we in this House can decide what opportunities there should be of debate and of understanding, and of enabling those whom we represent to understand, what is compulsorily happening to them. At least, that is a matter which we have open to us.
My suggestion is that, before there is any move for ratification, the legislation, and possibly the new rules which will have to be made in pursuance of the Convention, should first be produced by the Government and made available for hon. Members. That would not involve the Government in any extra work. The Bill will have to be drafted to give effect to most of these changes, and to those which do not require legislation effect will presumably have to be given by new rules of the courts. Those will have to be drawn up. They will have to contain the necessary degree of correctness and precision. That is work that will have to be done.
I suggest that that work should be done first and that both Houses should have available to them a draft Bill and draft rules before the question of ratification arises, so that at any rate when we come to the actual legislation we are not in the position in which we found ourselves back in 1972, or in a worse position, of being told, whenever we seek to raise a matter or introduce an amendment, "You cannot do that because this matter is already settled and binding under a Convention which has been entered into and ratified."
At least, it would be decent and, I believe, in the long run, in the interests of the Government for both Houses to have available to them a draft Bill. This very much concerns another place since, whatever views hon. Members may hold of it, there is no doubt that in that place there is assembled considerable legal knowledge and experience which should be brought to bear upon such legislation as this. I therefore put it to the Government that this should be done.
No doubt the Lord Advocate cannot give an answer off the cuff tonight but I hope it will be supported on both sides of the House that the legislation, in the widest sense of the term, which will eventually become necessary should be available in draft form before ratification takes place.
I appreciate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not be able to promise that a debate will take place before ratification, on the assumption that proceedings under Section 1 of the 1972 Act are not necessary. Nevertheless, I hope that the fairness, the reasonableness and even the decency of the course I have proposed will be recognised and that the, Lord Advocate will be able to indicate at any rate that the Government will give serious consideration to acceding to this request.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am perhaps unwise to enter into this debate because I feel, like many of us did this morning on our way to the House, in a fog. My vision is necessarily limited. Since I am representing the interests of ordinary citizens, not lawyers, it is perhaps right that I should make a number of points.
First, the motion refers to the House taking note of Commission documents, but I am not quite sure whether these are Commission documents. I do not see the usual Commission frontispiece.

The Lord Advocate: They are Council documents.

Mr. Spearing: I think that we might return to this point before the end of the debate. But I am glad that I have at least cleared that up. Perhaps my remarks about fog are more relevant than I thought.
My right hon. and learned Friend used the word "sight" in his introduction. I am glad that I interrupted him, because it appears that this could be the last opportunity that the House will have to debate this set of documents. For that reason, some hon. Members might not wish to take note of them.
If we are to take note of documents, we should at least be capable of understanding them or of having them expounded in such a way that the ordinary citizen, the reader of Hansard, not only


those professionally concerned with international law, understands those matters which will affect him, and clearly these matters will affect him. With respect to my right hon. Friend, I am not sure whether the exposition or, indeed, the documents come into that category.
Secondly, if we are to take note of documents, we should understand their implications. I certainly do not. Clearly, they will be important. At some time, either in British courts or in some cause célèbre, the fact that we adhere to this Convention, if we do, will be pointed to as an obligation. Indeed, the debate may be cited, if this motion goes through, as showing that the House gave its approval for such proceedings to take place in this country. The police, tipstaffs, bailiffs and others may be involved as a result of judgments having to be enforced.
I should have thought that more of our colleagues with legal experience would have been present tonight. I see my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons), the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) and the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) in their places. But I should have thought that lawyer Members would have been here en masse to examine this matter, because it will clearly have some effect on their profession and on the proceedings in which they take part.
This Convention is pregnant with problems—at least, I think that it is—and I want to divide what I have to say into two parts: first the practice, and secondly whether some of the results which may stem from it should be promoted by the EEC.
The Explanatory Memorandum points out:
Judgments given by a court of a Member State are to be recognised and enforced by the courts of other Member States without further investigation, the grounds for non-recognition being effectively limited to breach of the principles of public policy or natural justice.
There may be some loopholes there, and I should not like to say how wide they may be.
My right hon. and learned Friend clearly spelt out matters—Admiralty

trusts, insurance and so on—which will be of great commercial importance. I submit that they will also affect people, particularly in matrimonial matters. I take it that the custody of children may come into this matter. If not, perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will explain in winding up the debate.
Many people come to see me in my surgery. Among the matters that they raise are the maintenance and custody of children and minors domiciled in other EEC States. There is a good deal of emotion in these matters. If there are to be tug-of-love scenes between not only parents but courts, in this country and other EEC countries, where evidential practices and the basis of law are different, we shall be heading for big trouble. This Convention may cover such matters, but I have not been able to discern whether it does from what has been said so far.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: The hon. Gentleman referred to people being emotionally involved, tug-of-love scenes, custody of children and so on. Surely the incidence of such disputes arising would be reduced or minimised as the result of the harmonisation of legal terms, procedures and practices in different countries.

Mr. Spearing: That remains to be seen. I suspect that the law will become even more complicated. In practice, harmonisation does not always result. Even within English law, let alone Scottish law, problems arise in this area.
If there is to be an obligation on the courts of this country to apply without further investigation the judgments made by courts in other EEC countries—and even if it may be simpler for lawyers if the law is codified; I am not saying that it will be—I suggest that in human terms we may be in for difficult times. People here may say "We cannot do that. We have to act on the judgment of another court, without any let, hindrance, appeal or argument of that sort."
I can foresee that there will be problems. Perhaps there will be fewer problems than before, but I fear not because of the obligation of application. I do not say that there should not be some international arrangement of this sort: any of us can see that there will be clear


advantages in some international arrangements in legal matters. That is common sense—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend doubts that. Perhaps there are good arguments against it. There is a balance of argument on both sides—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The point that worries me is that, because we are not expert in these matters, the question whether we accept them becomes a case of our having to follow our instincts. We can be guided only by what has happened in the past and by the circumstances of our entry into the Common Market. When I hear stories about the advantages that will accrue, I have to remember, as my hon. Friends have to remember, what has happened in other circumstances.
Before the 1972 Act, after the Treaty, and many times after the referendum—although the voices of the pro-Marketeers have become a little more muted on these matters—it was said that tremendous advantages would accrue, economically and in many other respects. But we have witnessed a massive increase in the dole queues and, until recently, a massive increase in inflation. We have seen Britain's economy being brought to a standstill, even in respect of steel. In the whole area of our connections with the Common Market I tell my hon. Friends that there is nothing of advantage I cannot find any advantage in this proposal, either.
Unless my hon. Friends can tell me that there is something here that will accrue to our benefit—something specific that they can show me—I cannot give my support to a proposal of this kind.

Mr. Spearing: I entirely follow the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), in the sense that in the past the results of harmonisation and of joining the Common Market have been held out to us as concrete advantages; but the promises made in this respect have proved to be incorrect. My hon. Friend has every right to say what he has said, because we have had similar offerings in the past.
I do not discount the possibility of some international legal arrangements being made, but I suggest that they must be arrived at within a specific structure and under specific auspices, and that if such arrangements are made the House

must study them carefully. If there are changes to our statutes, those changes must go through this House, which is the proper body to deal with them. We must study proposed changes in legislation and we must study the Convention, in its future form, in the minutest detail.
These proposals are not of that sort. An entrepreneur, an international agency or a supranational agency is not the same thing as a convention of States coming together for specific legal purposes. We are dealing with the EEC. That makes it into a very different type of arrangement.
We all know that the EEC is a unitary structure, with its own Court of Justice. I do not know whether that court comes into this. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will tell us. I suspect that the EEC court has a place in this arrangement. Since this is an EEC treaty, I take it that the court will decide matters of dispute. This proposal goes far beyond international legal arrangements of which some of us might approve. It is part of the system of the EEC.
The EEC has many objectives, and the laws of the EEC and their enforcement provisions will be of a specific character. Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us whether there is any specific provision for countries not being members of the EEC to participate in this international treaty? The matter is left open. Norway is not a member of the EEC but it is in Europe and there will be some issues, such as those touching on Admiralty and navigation matters, which will be of concern to it. It would be more appropriate for another international body, perhaps the United Nations, perhaps a convention of maritime countries, to deal with this question of legal co-operation, if it were thought right to have such a body. Yet the EEC is taking this issue under its wing. The EEC has a specific tenor and has specific objectives which are ultimately supranational. The EEC court is supranational in a way in which the other International Court at The Hague is not.
I submit that this is a commercial arrangement which will spill over into the lives of individuals. Until now, the courts of this country have provided protection to its citizens. I am not sure that they would be able to provide this protection if this Convention were accepted. The


courts would have to say "We are sorry, but the court in Messina made that judgment and we have to enforce it." As I understand it, that is what will happen, and that is not the case at the moment.
I question whether we should take note of these documents, for two reasons. In the first case, I think that the merits are not clear. Even if they were, the vehicle chosen for this form of international cooperation is not an international body but a supranational body. It is for that reason that some of us would not wish to take note of the documents.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: Before considering the documents before us, I have two protests to make. The first concerns the timing of the debate. It is being held late at night and we have been given only a short time to deal with the subject. I suppose that there are a score of important points of law raised in these documents—the sort of issues on which we would spend days in Committee, discussing and trying to get them right. We are asked to deal with them in one and a half hours after 11 p.m. It is quite impossible to do so with justice. As a result, we must take a broad view on the various points raised.
My second protest concerns the fact that once again in a debate of this sort the House finds itself without a vital document. This is not the first occasion on which this has happened. It seems to be almost a habit. The vital document is the one which has been placed in the Library. To place one copy of a document in the Library is not the same as putting it in the Vote Office, with copies available for all hon. Members. The document should have been included with the others available for the debate in the Vote Office. We do not know, except for what the Lord Advocate has said, what further points are being put forward by the United Kingdom with a view to improving this Convention. That is what we are debating tonight. We are debating what Ministers ought to do, in the proper councils of Europe, to improve these documents as they apply to the United Kingdom.
Having made these protests, I think that this kind of subject is absolutely right for a treaty or convention amongst the States of Europe. This is exactly the

sort of subject in which we can benefit from being members of contracting States in Europe. If the other States are going to amend their laws—indeed, if they join this Convention they will do so—as we amend ours, we shall get as much benefit, if not, in some cases, more out of the Convention as the other contracting States will get from our change in our laws. So this is an appropriate subject for some convention, treaty or agreement between the European States.
But then I come to the form that the agreement will take. As I understand it, if it is a convention which is not acknowledged as a treaty, we can discuss it fully in this House before it affects this country through our own substantive law. But if it is to become a treaty—and at some stage we shall designate it as such under Community law—everything in that treaty which alters our law automatically takes effect without any further legislation in this country.
I want the Minister to give an undertaking that this convention will not be designated as a treaty and thereby bind us without any further legislation in this country. That is the position. We have seen it recently in the result of a designated treaty, and we have argued it out on the Floor of the House. We are forbidden, indeed, by our Treaty with the Community to try to put a treaty into our law. We are bound by the wording in that Treaty, and we cannot repeat it in our law.
If this Convention is to be treated in that way it will be very serious, because we shall not have an opportunity of discussing its terms fully. I hope that this one will come before us again as a full draft Convention, so that we can discuss it in some form in detail before it becomes a substantive part of our law, either by treaty or by rules of court, or will be put before us by the Government in the form of a Bill.
On the merits of the proposals, my view is that the change in the basis of jurisdiction of the courts will be very valuable. Physical presence has never really been a satisfactory basis for jurisdiction. Domicile is far better. If one relies on physical presence, the proceedings may be frustrated by the disappearance of the defendant after he has been served. He is much less likely to leave


this country permanently if he is domiciled here.
But if that applies in the other contracting States, and if a person domiciled in this country is physically present in another contracting State, we must provide in this Convention that the service of the proceedings on him in that other contracting State is facilitated. If he is to be brought before the courts here—and under the Convention he should be brought before the courts in the State in which he happens to be at the moment—the service of the proceedings by those courts here must be simplified somehow.
I see a little difficulty here in that "domicile" is to be left for the definition of the contracting States. Indeed, we are told in the memorandum from the Lord Chancellor that this country will be able itself to define what is meant by "domicile". If we are to have a different definition of "domicile" in all the contracting States, I can foresee considerable difficulties. Indeed, this is where I and some of my hon. Friends will have to declare an interest in that litigation will multiply, and, being a solicitor, I am sure that I shall make a lot of money out of it. I hope that that will not be the case. I hope that the definition of "domicile" will be the same in all the contracting States.
I turn to the other points which are cleary set out in paragraph 7 of the memorandum. The special jurisdictions set out in Articles 5 to 16 of the 1968 Convention are clearly right. There are some which should perhaps be added. This, again, is where we might have been assisted by having been able to study the document laid in the Library. But one cannot go into such details in a debate of this sort. I only say in general that the special jurisdictions which we have seen set out in the documents before us seem to be correct.
I am a little worried about the fact that jurisdiction cannot be fixed by agreement between the parties. The Lord Advocate mentioned the demands internationally for the services of our courts. In fact, litigants who by domicile, physical presence or the performance of the contract have no real claim to come to our courts nevertheless do so. I do not see why we should prevent that. We should be able to have a form of agree-

ment whereby litigation can be brought before our courts here.
The same applies to the point mentioned in paragraph 7(d) of the memorandum—the discretion of the courts to assume jurisdiction. I would regret it if that were abolished.
However, one can deal with this subject only with a broad brush. On the whole, we must recognise that this is one of the cases—for me there are many others—where by agreement between the contracting States we ourselves can gain great benefit out of this harmonisation. I believe that we shall get just as much if not more, benefit out of the other contracting States bringing themselves in line with what we shall suggest even though we shall have to alter our law to harmonise with theirs.

11.53 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I join briefly in this debate not because of any particular legal knowledge or expertise on this subject but to add a few words which, I hope, will not be too general and will fit appropriately into the debate.
I also join enthusiastically with my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), who referred to the frustrations that are caused by this kind of debate in that a maximum of an hour and a half is given late at night to a subject which is extremely important. The fact that it is heavy with legal consequences makes it a natural deterrent to most hon. Members. However, it is an important subject which should be dealt with in a much less cavalier way by the Government.
Our trying to indulge seriously in genuine and legitimate scrutiny of important EEC documents is in stark contrast to the aggressive political attitude of the Government in respect of different portfolios and different negotiations and subjects in Brussels, where they continually say that they are the only guardians of British interests and the only sturdy upholders of the national interest. That attitude is in stark contradiction with the fact—which is worth repeating—that the Government have on so many occasions refused to show more courtesy to the House by providing time and more suitable opportunities for the effective scrutiny of documents of this kind.
My personal view is that this kind of complicated document, particularly when it is of a legal and esoteric nature, is very difficult for hon. Members to absorb in the limited time available. I believe that such documents should be dealt with on more than one occasion, beginning on the Floor of the House, going upstairs to the Statutory Instruments Committee and then returning to the Floor of the House for a final debate.
The Lord Advocate arrived here rather breathless, and he did not seem to be all that familiar with the material in his very well written brief. If I am wrong on that point, I shall withdraw it immediately. Surely he would feel that it would be better to have a more thorough discussion of the weighty matters in these documents.
I concur with what has been said earlier in this debate. Since this is a preliminary draft, much more must happen. The suggestion of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) about two bites at the cherry should be taken on board by the Government.
I assume that there is no chance of our being ready to sign the Accession Convention by the original due date and that the next stage will be our normal procedure for the ratification of treaties. Interposed in that may be an intervening stage which might be an opportunity for the Government to tidy up these documents between English and Scottish law.
I hope that that does not mean a delay in the prosecution of the documents or in accession to the Convention. The fears and anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) should be allayed. These documents are not as far-reaching as he thinks. They are much more marginal, and they arise in logical terms from the Treaty of Accession and Sections 1 and 2 of the European Communities Act.
The House of Lords, in its 45th Report at the end of July last year, gave a very good report, suitable for both Houses, on the need for these Conventions and the legal principle of effectiveness. In those terms the House can proceed, after proper discussion which we have not had tonight, to approve these documents.
It is a pity that even the terminology is wrong on this occasion. These are not conventional Commission documents as we know them. They may be remote to most people, rather obscure and not of much importance. But the absence of the documents, to which the right hon. Member for Down, South referred, is disturbing to most hon. Members. Perhaps the Lord Advocate could answer that point.
This has been an object lesson. On future occasion when convention accession or treaty accession documents come before the House, a much clearer procedure should be used by the Government in order to help the House to deal with these matters more sensibly and expeditiously.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is well known that these matters are dealt with under Standing Order No. 3 dealing with exempted business. That Standing Order, in lines 45 to 55, clearly states:
'Commission documents' means draft proposals by the European Economic Community for secondary legislation and other documents published by the Commission for submission to the Council of Ministers".
It will be within the recollection of the House that in my speech I elicited that these documents are not Commission documents, and when the motion refers to "Commission documents" it is inaccurate. Therefore, I submit that both the motion and this debate are out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Does the Lord Advocate agree with that?

The Lord Advocate: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must concede that these documents are in no sense Commission documents.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Since it appears that the documents before the House are not Commission documents within the meaning of Standing Order No. 3, I must withdraw the motion from the consideration of the House.

Mr. Graham Page: On the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to be clear about the bombshell which has been sprung upon the House. We were all waiting for the wise words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for


Southport (Mr. Percival) and for the Minister's reply. Are we not now to receive those comments?
If that is so, may we have some statement from the Lord Advocate? He has thrown the bomb at us, so to speak, by saying that these documents are not what they were said to be on the Order Paper. When are we to debate these matters? Indeed, shall we have a chance to debate them at all? We do not want the documents to move to the next stage without the House having a chance to debate them and having the opportunity to be given a ministerial reply to the points which have been raised in the debate.

Mr. Dykes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I heard correctly, the Lord Advocate said that the documents concerned were not Commission documents. Since there has been nothing said about the veracity of the matter, could we not continue for the concluding period?

The Solicitor-General: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was to reply to the debate, and I assure the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) that I was bursting to do so. However, if you rule that I have no right to reply because the matter is out of order, that will be the end of the matter. The unhappy consequence will be that the House will be deprived of an opportunity to discuss something that is to take place on 24th January.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As it is clear that this is not a matter covered by the Standing Orders, I have no power to allow the debate to continue. What the Lord President does about the matter afterwards is not for me.

Mr. Graham Page: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The motion having been not exactly withdrawn but sabotaged, torpedoed and sunk by the Lord Advocate, surely he should explain what he intends to do. It seems to me that this debate must be finished or set down for discussion at a proper time. If it is not to be dealt with at this late hour, it must be dealt with at a more normal time in our proceedings I seek an undertaking from the Treasury Bench that we shall be given Government time to complete the debate.

Mr. Percival: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I echo the words of the Solicitor-General? He said how anxious he was to reply. I was waiting to get up to give him some more material to reply to.
One again, we face the unhappy prospect that we are now losing one-third even of the limited time that we are given to discuss Community documents. I hope we may have an assurance from the Government on this matter. I am sure that the Ministers who are present share our views on the seriousness of the matter that was under discussion. The matter must be discussed; there are no two ways about it. Obviously, because of the procedure of the House we cannot discuss the matter now but, although we understand the Minister's difficulties, we are determined to press for an assurance that time will be given to debate it. We hope that Ministers will do their utmost to ensure that time is given to complete the debate before any further step is taken in the Community itself.

The Lord Advocate: I apologise to the House for the situation in which we find ourselves. The Committee on European Legislation recommended this procedure, but I must take responsibility, on behalf of the Government, for the procedure having gone wrong. Obviously I cannot give an undertaking about further time, but I have taken careful note of all the points that have been made and I shall certainly pass them on to the appropriate quarter.

It appearing from the debate that the documents referred to in the motion were not Commission documents within the meaning of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business), Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER withdrew the motion from the consideration of the House.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS (LIBRARY)

Motion made,
That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), in their Fifth Report, in the last Session of Parliament, on Computer-based Indexing for the Library.

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — SEAHAM HALL HOSPITAL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham.]

12.5 a.m.

Mr. T. W. Urwin: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a subject of considerable importance in my constituency. Happily, I am able to raise it earlier than would have been possible but for the perspicacity of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) who got the previous debate terminated so quickly.
The subject that I wish to discuss is the proposed closure of Seaham Hall Hospital in my constituency. For the benefit of the Minister who is to reply, it might be helpful if I gave a little of the history of this rather beautiful bilding.
It has historic links with the Millbanke family of local fame and was bought by the third Marquis of Londonderry in 1821. While in the ownership of Sir Ralph Millbanke, it became more famous because of the marriage of his daughter to the poet Lord Byron. The building occupies a spacious site set in romantic Byron's Walk on a promontory overlooking the sea.
The building was leased by the present owners to Durham County Council in 1927 for the purposes of establishing a sanatorium for tuberculosis sufferers and was an admirable choice for such a purpose. Latterly it has gained a considerable reputation for the excellence of the cardiothoracic service established there some years ago. This service occupied 49 of the 119 beds in the hospital. The service has recently been transferred to the new Freeman Road Hospital in Newcastle as part of the reorganisation of the regional hospital service.
That decision culminated in anxious and intensive speculation about the future of Seaham Hall Hospital. The decision to plan a complete closure was taken by the regional health authority early in 1977 and immediately provoked considerable local opposition to the closure proposal. Crowded public meetings were held and these led to the formation of a local action committee and a massive volume of support from virtually all public and voluntary bodies in the town of Seaham as well as private individuals.
Easington District Council and Durham County Council supported the campaign to save the hospital. A petition was organised by the action committee and presented to Sunderland health authority. Presumably the same petition will go to the area health authority in time for its meeting next week and will eventually arrive on the desk of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It will contain at least 10,000 signatures supporting the retention of the hospital. Proposals from the Sunderland Area Health Authority giving specific reasons for the closure decision, supported by the Durham Area Health Authority, indicated that Seaham Hall would be closed after the transfer of the cardiothoracic surgical service to Newcastle and the transfer of the chest medicine service to Sunderland.
The Sunderland Area Health Authority went on to say that the principal reasons for wanting to close the hospital were the transfer of the cardiothoracic surgery service to the Freeman Road Hospital, Newcastle, which would render Seaham Hall an uneconomic unit, the need to make savings to finance other Health Service developments, and the desire to integrate general and chest services. As the authority pointed out, Seaham Hall is an adapted building and neither Sunderland Area Health Authority nor Durham Area Health Authority has any plans to re-use it for hospital services. The further development has now taken place where the 49 cardiothoracic beds have been transferred to the Freeman Road Hospital.
The proposals to transfer the cardiothoracic surgery and the chest unit from Seaham Hall were reluctantly accepted by the community health council, if only because those plans had been in being since 1975 and were really too far advanced for the council to make any impact on the decision. It is understandable that at that point the local campaign began to gain even greater impetus, if only because Seaham Hall has been an extremely valuable hospital, small though it is. A most glowing tribute was paid in an article in the local Sunderland Echo of 11th July 1977, in which it was stated:
That leaves the hospital's other speciality —chest medicine, which Sunderland Area Health Authority wants to relocate.


Relocation has since taken place. The article continued:
The installation in the 17th century building of one of the best-equipped operating theatres in Britain was reported in 1965 as 'playing an increasingly important role in heart and chest surgery'.
The first heart operation was performed in 1960. An intensive-care unit was developed during the next five years. One milestone in the Hall's enviable medical record was the successful 1964 hole-in-the-heart operation on a 13-year old boy. Open-heart surgery later became a Seaham speciality.
Closed-circuit TV and a monitor room for physicians and technicians to watch theatre work kept the hospital in the forefront of developments. A new laboratory catered for pathology services.
From that article the real value that is placed on the hospital by the local people will be acknowledged. They are quite properly claiming that it is unique in another respect, in that for many years it has been regarded affectionately as a happy hospital. It is a family hospital where, to my knowledge, there have never been any real staff problems.
The Sunderland Community Health Council, supported by the Durham Community Health Council, with the backing of the local action committee and acting strictly within the provisions of the statute, began the consultative procedures by presenting the closure document to a packed public meeting on 13th July 1977. There were 10 alternative proposals put forward for the continuing use of the hospital, some of which were selected by the joint community health councils. Those proposals were ultimately flatly rejected by the area health authority.
At a further meeting on 24th October 1977 the Sunderland Community Health Council decided formally to oppose the closure. It proceeded to submit a counter proposal comprising three specific alternative uses that had public backing. First, it was proposed that there be provision for the younger chronic sick. Secondly, it was proposed that it be used for geriatric patients. Thirdly, it was proposed that it be used for convalescent patients.
As for the first category of younger chronic sick, the suggestion was made that 25 to 30 beds could be retained and made available for the longer-stay younger chronic sick. From its researches, the community health council

was able to prove a quite substantial need in the Sunderland area for long-stay accommodation. It had established that in the middle of last year there were then known 30 or 40 patients who would have benefited from the provision of such accommodation.
The CHC went on to say that during the past four years people requiring long-stay care have been sent from the locality to places as far distant as Liverpool and Hertfordshire, many miles removed from Seaham Harbour, to Cheshire Homes in Consett and to Matfen in Northumberland. The CHC believes that this is the most important area of need in Seaham at present.
Additionally, the regional paraplegic unit at Hexham has experienced difficulty in returning patients to home areas, including Sunderland, while adaptations are carried out to their homes. The proposed unit would enable such patients to be within their own community and would facilitate visiting, and earlier rehabilitation might well follow. I understand that the ground floor area of the hospital is easily convertible for this particular use at what could be minimal expense.
The Department of Health and Social Security document "Priorities for Health and Personal Social Services", as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will recall, emphasised the need for provision for the younger disabled.
Secondly, the allocation of 30 beds for geriatric patients would clearly help the Sunderland area to move closer to the Department's guidelines on provision of beds for the elderly. There has been some difficulty in accurately assessing the number of old people in the area. The probable figure for Sunderland and that part of the Easington district which falls within the administrative area of the Sunderland AHA is about 53,000 people over the age of 65. I am told that that is a minimum estimate.
The Department's formula suggests 530 beds to service such a population of elderly people, whereas only 388 such beds are available in the Sunderland catchment area. It is estimated that there are 16,000 elderly people in the Seaham community alone. I understand that 400 of these people, on average, are hospitalised in Sunderland each year. In those


circumstances, there is clearly a heavy strain on apparently inadequate resources.
Increasing longevity, too, as my hon. Friend will appreciate compounds problems such as these. The example that I would cite is the large number of people who are over 75 years of age. This age group alone will increase by over 20 per cent. in the next 10 years. Clearly, this is another area of somewhat high priority.
In category three the CHC recommends that 10 convalescent beds should be made available at this hospital for patients requiring a rest following hospitalisation. The need is highlighted by problems surrounding Silloth Hall in Cumbria, which has been a receiving hospital for this kind of patient. Its future is uncertain. I am told that the hospital operates on a year-to-year basis. In the last full year of its operation, 290 patients were sent from the Sunderland area to Silloth Hall. Again, it is important to have people convalescing nearer home. Admissions to Silloth Hall are becoming increasingly difficult. My information is that in May 1977 there were 80 women on the waiting list. It is quite possible that some of those women are still waiting for places in the hospital.
It is the expressed opinion of social workers, general practitioners and consultants that the need is well above the current usage of convalescent beds in Sunderland of three to four patients per week. In those three categories the community health council proposal is for a maximum of 70 beds against the 119 that the hospital carries. The proposals have been rejected by the Sunderland Area Health Authority and have now been submitted to the regional health authority for final decision.
We must have some regard to costing. I understand that about £760,000 was required to run the hospital in the fiscal year which ended in March 1977. The withdrawal of cardiothoracic services would leave an estimated £400,000 budget for the continued use of Seaham Hall, on the projections by the community health council. On the basis of regional averages and available financial information, the community health council estimated that the three-point counter proposal would cost £290,000 a year.
It is reasonable to assume that that calculation does not take account of inflation since the figures were compiled, nor, I imagine, does it take account of the cost of the minor structural works that would be required to adapt the building for the proposed re-use, but this would be a non-recurring cost. It is equally reasonable to assume that the balance can be equated with estimated annual running costs.
Employment is an important factor here, even though the hospital is relatively small. It is even more important when we consider the very high unemployment rates in my constituency and in this part of it. A total of 202 staff were employed in the hospital when it worked at full capacity, and 60 per cent. were part-time workers. There is the possibility of some difficulty in redeploying those part-time workers in the Sunderland area. The 202 are the equivalent of a full-time complement of 160 staff.
The counter proposal from the community health council requires only 100 full-time staff. The retention of those 100 jobs at Seaham would be quite a stimulus to employment in Sunderland, as it would also require the recruitment of additional staff to man the new Sunderland General Hospital.
My constituents have given an emphatic "No" to the proposed closure. Here we have a fine building which has given wonderful service over a fairly long period. It is ideally sited for hospital purposes, despite being in a mining area There are three pits within virtually a stone's throw of the hospital. Closure must be a paradox in view of the high incidence of accidents and the dreaded industrial diseases to which all coal miners are highly vulnerable.
My hon. Friend the Minister will therefore appreciate that local feeling runs high, not least over the madness of Health Service reorganisation, carried out by the Conservative Government, which places Seaham Hall Hospital firmly in the area of the Durham Area Health Authority yet within the administrative jurisdiction of the Sunderland Area Health Authority. If my hon. Friend does not understand the geography, he will have difficulty in acquainting himself with those facts. That reorganisation also cuts across equally


controversial and ridiculous local government boundaries, also determined by the Conservative Government.
The regional hospital authority's decision is anxiously awaited not only by my constituents but by me. I appeal to my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to examine carefully the case for retention, as proposed by the Sunderland Community Health Council. In the event of an adverse decision, I should hope to be able to persuade my right hon. Friend to receive a deputation from the locality. I should take great pleasure in leading it.

12.25 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) for giving me the opportunity to speak about the future of Seaham Hall Hospital. I know this is causing a good deal of concern both to his constituents and to the people of Sea-ham and the surrounding area, and my hon. Friend enforced it in what he said. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is already aware of this local feeling as he has received a number of representations from local groups including the Sunderland Community Health Council, about the proposed closure of this hospital.
The Sunderland Area Health Authority has only recently referred its proposal to close Seaham Hall Hospital to the Northern Regional Health Authority, and I understand that the RHA is to consider the matter at its next meeting on 24th January. I must emphasise, therefore, that nothing I say today should be construed as prejudging the issue in the case of Seaham Hall Hospital and, in this context, I think it might be helpful if I described the procedures for the closure or change of use of any National Health Service building.
Following the reorganisation of the NHS in 1974 and the introduction of new planning procedures, the procedures for the closure or change of use of health buildings were reviewed and my Department issued revised guidance in 1975. The aim of the new procedures is to enable scarce resources to be redeployed with the maximum speed and simplicity consistent with adequate local and, where

necessary, national consultation. The rightness of this approach seems especially relevant at a time of economic restraint, when it is absolutely essential that no unnecessary barriers should stand in the way of the cost-effective use of resources.
In general, responsibility for determining the closure or change of use of health buildings rests with the appropriate area health authority, which in the case of the Seaham Hall Hospital is the Sunderland Area Health Authority, provided that the community health council is in agreement. Where there is general local agreement, it should be possible to effect a closure or change of use within a period of six months.
Having said that responsibility rests with the area health authority, I should like to say a little about the role of this statutory body. It is there to direct and lead the officers who serve the authority to create and improve services for the management of the local health service and, perhaps most importantly, to oversee the standard of services provided both in terms of quality and quantity. Lest some hon. Members feel that an area health authority must in consequence be out of touch with the day-to-day running of services in its area, district, and hospitals. I would add that, thanks to this Government's actions in bringing about within two years of taking office a greater degree of democracy in the National Health Service than we inherited under the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973, the people who sit on health authorities are very much attuned to the feelings and aspirations of their community.
If, having discussed informally a particular closure or change of use with the interested organisations, an area health authority considered that such a measure would be beneficial, it would have to initiate formal consultations. In this event, the procedures require the authority to prepare a consultative document covering such matters as the reasons for its proposal, an evaluation of the possibilities of using the facilities for other purposes or the disposal of the site, implications for the staff, the relationship between the closure or change of use and other developments and plans, and the transport facilities for those patients who might be affected by the proposals. The


area health authority would invite comments on the proposals contained in the document, within a period of three months, from such bodies as the community health councils, local authorities, staff organisations, family practitioner committees and local advisory committees, including the local medical committees. Hon. Members whose constituents were affected would also be informed of the proposals.
Following this stage of consultation, the authority then reviews its original proposals in the light of the comments received, and it could then implement its original proposals provided that the community health council agreed. The regional health authority and my Department would be informed of the decision.
However, if the community health council objects to the authority's proposals, it is required to submit to the authority a constructive and detailed counter proposal, paying full regard to the factors, including restraints on resources, which led the authority to make its original proposal. The matter must then be referred to the regional health authority. If the regional health authority is unable to accept the views of the council and wishes to proceed with the closure or change of use, it falls to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to act as arbiter. I must repeat, therefore, that nothing I say now should be construed as prejudging the issue, on which the consultative procedures I have described are still in progress.
Having outlined the consultative procedures generally, I should like to say a few words about the particular proposals contained in the Sunderland Area Health Authority's consultative document on the future of Seaham Hall Hospital. I should perhaps stress first of all that Sunderland Community Health Council does not object to the AHA's proposals for the transfer of beds from Seaham Hall, but only to the proposal that the building should no longer be used for health services purposes. Having heard from my hon. Friend about the history of the building, I well understand local feeling about it. I should also stress that it is the area health authority's belief that its plans, which essentially involve the rationalisation of under-used

beds, will enable the authority to provide a more economic and efficient pattern of health care to the population it serves.
In May last year Sunderland Area Health Authority issued its consultative document on the future of Seaham Hall Hospital which at that time provided part of the regional cardiothoracic service having 42 surgical beds, as well as 72 beds for chest medicine. The consultative document referred to two developments affecting the future of Seaham Hall which had been outlined in the regional strategic plan for the period 1976–86 published in March 1977. One development to which agreement had already been given in 1975 following consultation by Newcastle Area Health Authority (Teaching) was the transfer of the cardiothoracic service from Seaham Hall Hospital to the new regional cardiothoracic unit being built at Freeman Road District General Hospital, Newcastle. The second development was the building of Scheme I of Phase IV of the Sunderland District General Hospital to which I have already referred.
As a result of this development Sunderland AHA carried out a general review both of its existing hospital beds and future bed needs to see what service rationalisation might be achieved. One proposal was that the chest medicine beds at Seaham Hall Hospital could be absorbed into the existing pool of Ryhope General and Sunderland Royal Infirmary general medical beds which were and are currently under-used. The area health authority's view was that the implementation of these proposals would achieve both financial savings and the greater integration of the area's chest medicine and general medicine services.
As I have already said, agreement had already been given to the transfer of the cardiothoracic service from Seaham Hall to the new unit at Freeman Road Hospital and, as my hon. Friend is aware, the move took place last month. As the consultative document on the future of Seaham Hall explains, the area health authority's view is that the loss of the cardiothoracic service makes the hospital uneconomic. This is why the area health authority has proposed, first, that the chest medicine beds should be absorbed into the Ryhope General and Sunderland Royal Hospitals on completion of the


pulmonary function laboratory, the bronchoscopy room and ward upgrading scheme, which are all currently being built at Ryhope General; and, secondly, that the buildings at Seaham Hall should no longer be used for any other Health Service purpose.
These plans have been made public by Sunderland Area Health Authority and I understand that a number of local organisations have commented. In particular—and again I wish to stress this point—the Sunderland Community Health Council, acting jointly with Durham CHC, has not objected to the proposed transfer of beds. What it does object to is the proposal to relinquish the use of Seaham Hall for Health Service purposes and it has made the following counter proposals. First, that the 42 cardiothoracic beds be re-used for the provision of between 25 and 30 long-stay beds for younger disabled patients. Secondly, that the 77 chest medicine beds be re-used for about 30 geriatric beds and 10 convalescent beds. I have noted carefully what my hon. Friend said in support of these proposals.
I am told that the community health council's objections to the proposed closure of Seaham Hall and its counter proposals were carefully considered by the area health authority at its November and December meetings. As a result it was decided to reaffirm the principle of the authority's proposals and the matter has

therefore been referred to the Northern Regional Health Authority.
I understand that the RHA will discuss both the proposals and the community health council's objections and counter proposals at its meeting later this month and it would certainly not be proper for me to comment further at this stage. I certainly cannot say what the regional health authority's decision will be; nor, if the matter is referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, can I anticipate his decision. All I can do at this juncture is to assure my hon. Friend that the RHA and my hon. Friend the Secretary of State—if he is asked to adjudicate—will consider all the evidence with the greatest care.
Our aim is to ensure that consultation is a meaningful process, that each case is decided on its merits in the light of prevailing local circumstances, and that full account is taken of the views of the community health councils whose duty is to represent the interests of the general public. In this way we may anticipate that the National Health Service will respond objectively to changing needs and changing ideas and that the most efficient use will be made of available resources for the benefit of the population as a whole.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to One o'clock.